Preamble

The House—having adjourned on 28th July, 1967, for the Summer Recess—met at Ten o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Bernard Floud, esquire, Member for Acton, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss which we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

REALLOCATION OF SCHOOLCHILDREN (SCOTLAND)

10.4 a.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for adequate public notification of revisions of school territorial areas in Scotland, and for consultation with parents of schoolchildren affected.
Perhaps I may begin by expressing the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, had a quiet and restful Recess and that the forthcoming Session will not be as tiring as the last.
The Bill is designed to improve the facilities for notifying and consulting parents when there is a change in the territorial areas of schools. Reallocations of schoolchildren can take place for many reasons—perhaps there is an increase in the school population of an area or a severe shortage of staff, or perhaps an inadequacy of school buildings or the building of new housing schemes. Particularly at present, it may also be because of the introduction of a new comprehensive plan.
Officials and authorities have a difficult task in making these arrangements, particularly in view of the shortage of school teachers and school buildings. Their task would be much easier if the good will of parents could be maintained. My experience is that when new

reallocation arrangements are properly explained to the parents and objections and possible amendments are seriously considered, no trouble is caused and the children's education is not interrupted.
On the other hand, I am afraid that some local authorities do not give proper scope to the interests of the parents. Some disregard quite blatantly the interests of parents and children and that is why I seek leave to introduce this Bill.
In some recent cases in Scotland, children have been treated like cattle, shunted around from one school to another and on other occasions the parents' fears for the safety and education of their children have been totally ignored. In one recent case in my constituency, children were advised on a Thursday that they were to move to a new school on the Monday, even though this involved a journey of over a mile and no public transport was provided. In another case in Glasgow parents made repeated requests for a meeting with education officials and councillors to have the new scheme explained and their questions answered, but, despite an appeal to the Scottish Office, no action was taken on this request.
Unfortunately, in many cases when there is a problem of this sort, parents feel helpless, because there is no recognised procedure for considering their complaints and grievances. What often happens is that an ad hoc parents' association is set up and its members feel that the only way to obtain action on their complaints is to cause a great deal of noise, to make substantial complaint and, in some cases, to interrupt the schooling of their children.
Parents are rightly concerned about such changes, perhaps because of the inadequacy of public transport, perhaps because the change will involve children crossing busy roads or a change of teacher or of school terms. My Bill is designed to overcome this.
In Clause 1 I suggest that, in the event of a change of territorial areas of schools, a note of the decision of the authority should be conveyed to the parents within ten days of its being made and, in addition, a note should be given of a meeting to take place with the parents within 30 days of the decision. At such a meeting, which


should be in a suitable meeting place in the area, consideration should be given to any objections and proposed alterations, and, of course, the local authority should be under an obligation to give its views on any objections lodged within ten days.
Clause 5 makes provision for an appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland in such cases when the parents are dissatisfied with the decision. In the final Clause, I make provision for cases of urgency when, in the interests of safety or in those of the children, or because a building is in danger, there should be opportunity, if the occasion arises, for this procedure to be dispensed with and a speedy and direct decision made.
The job of democracy is to protect people and their interests. This is one area in which the real interests of the parents and of the children are not being adequately safeguarded. The Bill will in no way interfere with the job of a good local authority, which is, in general, to maintain the good will of the parents in the community and to look after the best interests of their children. For these reasons, I seek leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. Monro, and Mr. G. Campbell.

REALLOCATION OF SCHOOLCHILDREN (SCOTLAND)

Bill to provide for adequate public notification of revisions of school territorial areas in Scotland, and for consultation with parents of schoolchildren affected, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 314.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

ECONOMIC SITUATION

10.11 a.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: It is nearly three months since the House had an opportunity of examining the economic situation. Much has happened during that period, and there are many questions which we wish to put to the Government. My colleagues and I therefore felt that it might be valuable if we were to examine the prospects for the coming winter. In this connection I express our gratitude to the Leader of the House for recognising the interests of minorities and thereby making this debate possible.
I am sure that the House wishes to congratulate the hon. Member who, I expect, will reply to the debate and to wish him well in his new office at the D.E.A. But I am sure that the House will be disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition is not able to be with us today, especially after the promise which we had that the Government would be opposed on their economic policies night and day. He appeared on Saturday to receive the euphoric plaudits of his party for saying that he would relentlessly oppose the Government, particularly on their economic policy. He rested appropriately, at sea on Sunday. And he was conspicuous by his absence from the House of Commons on Monday.
For an Opposition which claims to be one of the most dynamic which we have seen for many centuries, it seems strange, if the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will forgive me for saying so, despite his own merits, that instead of the Tory Front Bench we have the feather duster brigade here. However, if the Tories are to be taken on their own evaluation as an Opposition, it is clear that they would do so much less damage when in Opposition than when in Government that many of us are content to leave them there.
One of the events of the last few weeks and months has been that the Prime Minister has become overlord of the eco-


nomy. We do not know whether this betokens a change of policy, but certainly it appears to betoken a lack of enthusiasm on his part in the performance of his colleagues and some lack of confidence in their future capabilities. Perhaps the most eloquent comment on his new appointment is this:
As if the economic outlook were not black enough, with all the figures I have given, we have the Prime Minister descending from the misty stratosphere where he has been disporting himself with such singularly little effect and taking charge once again, as he did in 1956, of our economic affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1961; vol. 634, c. 329.]
Those are the words of the present Prime Minister criticising Mr. Harold Macmillan for doing precisely what he himself is now doing. Once again we find good Tory precepts adopted to the disadvantage of the country.
There have been more meaningful events in the past few months. There has been the Report of the Common Market Commission. Since we hope that they will accept our late entry form—with a few exceptions whose views I respect but from which I differ—obviously the view which the Commission takes of our economy is of some relevance. In addition, the unemployment figures have reached 560,000, or 2·4 per cent., which is the highest for a similar period for 27 years. We also know that it has been suggested that the unemployment figure could rise to as high as three-quarters of a million if there were a severe winter. We know that the £ has been under pressure for the past six weeks and that the Bank Rate, now at 6 per cent., is above that for all countries in Europe with the exception of Denmark. We know that the trade figures for September, showing a trade gap of £52 million, were the worst since June, 1966, and that the dock strike and the effect which that will have on our export drive means that none of us can look with very great enthusiasm at the October figures. Whatever they may be, I do not think that they can give us cause for much enthusiasm.
One thing which can be said is that in all quarters of the House there is agreement on the economic objectives of the country. Where I think the difference arises is that there is a disagreement

on priorities. The objectives are fourfold. The first is to achieve a sufficient balance of payments surplus to repay over three years the £700 million which we owe. The second is a satisfactory growth rate, to restore industrial confidence for investment and expansion and for financing improved social services. The third is for full employment. The fourth is full use of our resources and growth in underdeveloped areas. Although the unemployment figures in some of the worst affected areas have slightly improved, which we welcome, we still have unemployment running at 3·7 per cent. in Scotland and Wales and 7·5 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
If one is taking the question of priorities, the best way to achieve those four-fold objectives is by an export-led expansion in this country. I believe that that is something which we have to achieve, and to achieve very soon.
Has the economic situation changed dramatically since 1964 or are we in very much the same position? I may say, in parenthesis, that the Report of the Commission of the European Community is very long and that it is very dangerous to quote parts of it without taking the whole, but there are one or two general pointers which one can quote. For example, the Report says,
Although the British economy has recently emerged from the state of tension in which it found itself from 1963–64 on, its fundamental situation has hardly changed compared with similar phases in its previous evolution.
It is perfectly true, if we take the basic balance of payments, in 1964, whatever the Conservative conference may say, that there was a deficit of £716 million. It is perfectly true that in 1966–67 the deficit is of the order of £9 million—a very creditable achievement. But it has been at the cost of stagnation and high unemployment, and to a certain extent through the benefit of the 1966 delayed exports caused through the seamen's strike. It is true that exports have risen from £4,400 million in 1964 to £5,300 million in 196667, but this is in a context in which world exports have been going up, and what is more significant is that Britain's share in 1963–13 per cent.—had dropped to 11 per cent. in 1967.
The most disappointing aspect of the present economic situation has been the


low growth rate—3 per cent. in 1964, 2 per cent. in 1965, 1 per cent. in 1966 and a projection of a possible 2 per cent. in 1967 and perhaps 3 per cent. in 1968. With the increased productivity per man. if we are to have full employment in this country and a full use of the resources of the country, we shall need about 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. growth per annum, if we are to achieve all these things. The first question which I want to ask the Government, therefore, is whether they are satisfied with the 3 per cent. growth rate or whether they are now setting their targets higher?
Certainly we shall need a very high growth rate if we are to tackle the poverty which still exists in this country. If any member of the Treasury bench is in any doubt about that, let him look at the excellent article in Tribune on 13th October under the signature of Professor Townsend. That article shows the tremendous challenge in tackling poverty which awaits the Government.
What is the formula for success? It is easy to talk about the need for increased retraining schemes—and I want to say a word about that in a moment—particularly in respect of semi and unskilled workers. It is easy to talk about defence and the £73 million which we have spent abroad on military aircraft and which accounted for part of the £458 million increase in our imports since 1964. It is easy to talk about the prices and incomes policy which, instead of rewarding and encouraging increased productivity, discounts increased production: the taxation system which has partly produced the movement of scientists and engineers out of this country, as evidenced by the Jones Report; and the pricing policy of the nationalised industries by which we find that people will pay an increase of between 1½ per cent. and 16½ per cent. for electricity this winter.
Far more fundamental a subject and one which we must discuss in detail is the role of sterling. This is a question which a Liberal finds almost as difficult to get the House of Commons to discuss today as the question of the Common Market between 1955 and 1961. There are two problems which are separate and distinct. The first is whether sterling at its present valuation is right. The second is the problem of its reserve role in future.
Devaluation—almost a dirty word in this House—on its own achieves very little. It can give a temporary feeling of wellbeing, but it is no good lowering the fence three inches if the horse has not been properly fed in the stable in the first place. That feeling of wellbeing is dissipated if there are not proper tariff cuts and other measures immediately following devaluation.
The European Commission did not and could not advocate devaluation. However, the Commission was clearly worried about the position of sterling on several counts. First, it was not satisfied with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister under Article 108 of the Treaty of Rome; in which he sought to distinguish between internal pressures on sterling from the Community and external pressures. At the time I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were unrealistic and said so. The Commission also took the view that sterling would be a big problem for the Community and that even if we maintained a growth rate of 3 per cent. between now and 1970 that might overstrain the economy.
The Commission went on to mention sterling holdings and said that they did not represent such a significant percentage of our assets as they did. However, it suggested that this could be a vulnerable aspect of our economy and that they could place a significant strain on the Community. The Commission's Report implied—although I concede that this was not expressly said—that one cause for concern was sterling's present valuation.
The Government would be the first to accept that if sterling is over-valued, or is artificially valued, then nothing could more readily inflate the cost of our exports and damage our growth rate. Indeed, buying time by forward measures, whether through the Bank of England or gold guaranteed loans, will merely place a tighter halter around the necks of future generations. So long as Europe feels that sterling is over-valued, so long will they continue to speculate in sterling and so long will sterling be subjected to pressures.
Many suggestions have been put forward; for example, a floating exchange rate, an idea which has commended itself to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.


I suggest that a floating exchange rate now would mean the £ being lowered in value—and this seems a hole-in-thecorner way of advocating devaluation. Then there is the suggestion which Professor Meade has put forward, of a gradual adjusted rate of, say, 2 per cent. per annum.
If the Government are against any variation in the present exchange rate of sterling—accepting, as they must, the very real fears which our future economic partners in Europe have of sterling—what is their alternative? Next, can we be told the Government's view of the reported remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, if correctly reported, are very good news indeed? The right hon. Gentleman said at the recent Conference in Rio—his remarks were reported in Le Monde—that he is prepared to examine the question and that he has no basic objection to the concept of a European reserve currency. On this issue, the Commission said in its report:
… no national currency could assume the role of a Community currency. The E.E.C. monetary system should be achieved by progressive co-ordination of the policies of the member-states. The disequilibrium of economy is such as to make it difficult for Britain to shoulder her Community obligations.
If we are talking about the continued reserve role of sterling, it becomes all the more important that that sterling is correctly valued in relation to the other European currencies with which we hope it will become part of a European reserve currency. What are the Government's intentions on these two matters, including the issue of sterling's potential reserve future?
To which priorities do the Government attach the greatest importance; the maintenance of sterling, economic growth or full employment? Many of us now believe that the Government are so attached to the sacred cow of sterling that they are allowing it to take priority over full employment and growth and that, in setting these priorities, they are achieving nothing. Sterling continues to be under pressure, there is very little growth, there is stagnation and unemployment is the highest for 27 years. The position of sterling must be discussed by us as responsible Parliamentarians.

We must not pretend that the problem does not exist. Our European partners have said that in their view this is one of the biggest obstacles to Britain joining the Community.
Let us also examine incentives. We recall the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough—and I refer, of course, to the one he made in 1963. The right hon. Gentleman is always more radical in opposition. He said in that speech that it was vital to keep our scientists and technologists at home. How right he was. We now know that in 1966, 4,200 engineers and technologists and 2,000 scientists—which, if The Timeswas right in its assessment, is a figure representing two-fifths of those who graduated three years earlier—left this country. Whatever may be the puritan instincts of the party opposite about taxation, it must realise that unless people are given incentives they will not stay in this country. They will leave for greater opportunities.
This being so, let us consider some of our present taxes. There is no doubt that Selective Employment Tax has been one of the most ludicrous and ill thought-out taxes ever introduced. It is hitting the development areas, many of which rely on service industries such as tourism, which incidentally is our greatest single dollar earner. Other important service industries ancillary to manufacturing industry are being adversely affected and many people have been thrown out of employment without having alternative jobs to take.
We should now be moving towards the concept of an added value tax for industry. This will be a direct incentive to industrialists to lower their overheads and will give a direct incentive to industry generally to boost exports. Such a tax, we are now told, is impracticable, but I have no doubt it will be adopted in five or six years time. We must look at the whole question of annual Budgets —budgets made every 12 months and which merely tinker with the problem. We must have a proper economic strategy for taxation.
The Jones Committee brought out forcefully the feeling of people in Britain that they have little participation and involvement in the professional decisions. This is true be they politics or work.
This is a reason for tackling the whole question of regional development; that is, if people are to have a democratic say in the formulation of society. Participation in industry is vital. We need more works councils in industry. This is not only a question of incentives but of recognising the present lack of involvement, which makes people feel that they may have better opportunities elsewhere.
One of the main indictments of the Government is their failure to organise the labour market. Unemployment stands at 2·7 per cent. and the Prime Minister states that he rejects as an instrument of social policy a permanent pool of unemployment. We should be told just how much this concept represents Government policy, remembering that Sir Leslie O'Brien, Governor of the Bank of England, said in a recent speech:
The second way in which wage and price inflation is now approached lies in an acceptance—a courageous acceptance I believe for a Labour Government—that it is impossible to manage a large industrial economy with the very small margin of unused manpower and resources that characterised the British economy in the 1940's and 1950's. We must have a somewhat larger margin of unused capacity than we used to try to keep and this the authorities are now firmly determined to retain. One way and another we have gone rather further than we like for the moment, but we are determined in principle to keep what we regard as a desirable margin of spare capacity and not to let it be eroded by unsustainable booms.
Does that mean that the days of relatively full employment of the 'forties and 'fifties are a thing of the past; that to a Labour Government today they are now to be regarded in retrospect as over-full employment, something now unobtainable by the Government? I hope that we shall have a comment from the Minister on that point.
I hope, also, that we shall also hear the Government's prognosis of the likely unemployment figures for the coming winter, and the particular measures they propose to take to keep those figures down to the minimum. I believe that the residue after reflation will be very much greater, largely because of increased productivity from those who are at this moment in employment, largely because greater and greater skills are required of the people in industry today, and largely, also, because our retraining schemes concentrate very much on the

skilled to the detriment of the unskilled and the semi-skilled. I therefore think that we are creating what will be a very difficult unemployment problem to resolve even when reflation comes about.
As to retraining, it is perfectly true that the Government have made various grants through the Ministry of Labour such as plant grants for training purposes, weekly training subsidies and free loan of Ministry of Labour instructors to help with the unskilled and the semiskilled but, having said that, I believe that it is appalling that by the end of October we shall have only 38 retraining centres with a capacity of 12,000 people, and that by 1969 we shall have 48 centres with a capacity of 21,000.
When one considers that in France there are some 900 retraining centres and that one-third of all trained workers pass through them, and that in Sweden I per cent. of the labour force is either under training or retraining; and that 1 per cent. of the labour force of this country would be of the order of 240,000, one sees that the retraining facilities here are totally inadequate from the Government, and from a Government whose economic policies have resulted in the unemployment we have today, and who were warned at the time that the retraining facilities were totally inadequate to deal with that increased figure.
I hope that we shall hear something of what the Government intend to do about retraining. The Estimates Committee, in its ninth Report, on Manpower and Training in Industry, put forward some very valuable recommendations and suggestions, and I hope that we shall hear something more about that from the Government. But surely nothing less than 100,000 places a year for retraining will be adequate to deal with the present situation.
The electricity increases, which will hit many people very hard this winter, are all part of the price of not having a national fuel policy. I hope that we shall hear something about that from the Minister, or that, at any rate, he will pass on the message to his colleague, the Minister of Power.
Nor, obviously, can one be happy at the state of industrial relations when one considers the railway strike and the position in the docks. But I would say to the Government that the decasualisation


scheme was one which, from what one can see from the outside, deserved to succeed but that what the Government have failed to take into account is that, if we are seeing the recurrence of Ludditism, it is partly because of the fear of unemployment, of the knowledge that if a man is unemployed, his possibility of getting redeployed is very difficult, indeed. We have the case of the B.M.C. workers who were trained for six months to be are welders, only to find out that there was no job for them.
Throughout the whole of our labour force there is a feeling of fear of the figures of unemployment we have at the moment, the effect of the wage freeze on increased productivity and the fact that there are inadequate rewards for it. The Government are themselves partly to blame for the industrial climate which exists at the moment, and they should not underestimate it.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Liverpool dockers who are in dispute at the present moment have no objection whatsoever to the modernisation scheme or the decasualisation plan that is now being brought into operation? All they want is the just right to participate in it by having a fair amount of money in return for accepting it. It is not a question of Ludditism at all, and that remark is, in a sense, a slander on the workers who are involved in this dispute.

Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to the hon. Member, and I entirely accept his point. I am sure that he would agree with me that this is yet another effect of the wage freeze. This is the part of the atmosphere in which the sort of Fawley-type agreement of a few years ago is now barely possible because of the Government's prices and incomes policy. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that he will agree that this is produced partly by the economic climate which the Government's own wages policy has produced. All I said was—and I do not wish to "slander", to use the hon. Gentleman's word, any group of people in this country —that the unemployment—the "shakeout", to use the Prime Minister's euphemism for unemployment—plus the restrictionist movement on what would

otherwise be increased wages to get increased productivity, are all contributing to produce an industrial climate in which we shall not be able to get maximum economic growth.
Will the Government tell us their prognosis for the spring? Are we to see flowers when the spring comes, or are we to find that the earth remains hard and frozen? What do they put forward—if I may now "recap"—as their growth rate? Are they satisfied with the rate of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. or do they intend to raise their sights to something of the order of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent., which I think we must have if we are to have full employment? What is to be the position of sterling both as a reserve currency and as to its present valuation? What is the Government's view of a European reserve currency? What incentives are to be given—where they are pitifully absent at the moment, if the Jones Committee findings are to be any concern to the Government?
What is their prognosis for unemployment? How high do they think it will rise during the winter months? What have they in mind to step up retraining, which is at present very inadequate and therefore involves a great waste of human resources? In short, can we expect anything more than the timid stop-go policies of Conservatism which we have had from this Government since they were elected in 1964?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a short debate, and many hon. Members wish to catch my eye. Mr. Allaun.

10.38 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I should like to follow the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), in speaking about unemployment, but I want to take up one aspect in particular. The Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien, speaking to the Anglo-Argentine Chamber of Commerce on 5th October, said that the Government had accepted that there must be a larger margin of unused manpower and resources.
In simple language, in workshop language, that means a larger and permanent pool of unemployed.
Many Labour Members want to know, and are entitled to know, whether Sir Leslie was correctly stating the Government's policy. He either was or he was not. If he was not correct, he is not fit to hold this important position and should be sacked immediately. If, on the other hand, he were telling the truth, the anger of the people would be vented on the heads of the Government. Labour men would demand an immediate jettisoning of this policy.
Sir Leslie was appointed. I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and presumably could be fired by him. The question naturally arises: did he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he made this speech? Whether he did or did not, if the Government do not categorically repudiate Sir Leslie, they in turn will be repudiated by the British people, by the people in general and by the Labour and Trade Union Movement in particular. Because by 99 per cent. of the members of that great movement a permanent pool of unemployment is hated by every bit of their beings. This is Conservative, not Labour politics. This shocking policy is so wicked, so intolerable, that it must be immediately repudiated or rejected.
I remember 20 years ago drawing up a leaflet for one of the Labour Parties in Manchester. It bore on it in very large type the words of a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Higgs, who, speaking in New Zealand, said:
The only thing which will make Britons work is to have 11 men for every 10 men's jobs.
That kind of statement was the kind of thing which brought the Conservatives down in 1945. To me if there is only one man unemployed there is one man too many. Full employment is the biggest boon the worker knows. It means that a young lad leaving school can choose his career and is not forced into some uncongenial job. It also means—and has meant over the last 20 years, thank goodness—that blind and disabled workers stand a chance of getting jobs. It is not so easy for them today.
I have tried to table Questions on Sir Leslie O'Brien's speech, Questions to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. I have had to put them in very vague terms, because any reference to that

speech has been ruled out of order by the Clerks at the Table. I understand your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I am not making any criticism of you, because I am told that there is no Government responsibility for Sir Leslie O'Brien. That is a bit of a joke, a bad joke, too. I wish to pursue the matter now and to ask the Government for a clear reply today. I hope that the House will forgive me for making an exact quotation of Sir Leslie's speech as reported in The Times, as I do not want to be unfair to Sir Leslie. He said even worse things than the Liberal Leader has quoted.

Mr. William Hamilton: I also have had difficulty in putting down Questions. I think a fairly easy way of doing it would be simply to ask the Chancellor to dismiss Sir Leslie.

Mr. Allaun: I wish that I had been ingenious enough to think of that one. This morning I am asking if Sir Leslie was correctly stating the Government's view. This is what he said, and it is worth listening to carefully because it may or it may not be the truth:
The second way in which wage and price inflation is now approached lies in an acceptance—a courageous acceptance, I believe, for a Labour Government—that it is impossible to manage a large industrial economy with a very small margin of unused manpower and resources that characterised the British economy in the 1940s and 1950s.
We must have a somewhat larger margin of unused capacity than we used to try to keep and this the authorities are now firmly determined to retain.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Shame.

Mr. Allaun: The next day The Timeseditorial said that Sir Leslie was honestly and accurately reporting the Government's oft declared strategy as set forth in the Chancellor's last Budget. I quote The Timesagain:
Between 600,000 and 750,000 total unemployed is what is actually involved in paying our way over the next three to five years.
That is a horrifying statement. The next day Sir Leslie flew into London Airport.
When questioned on his speech, he did not deny making the statements I have read. In the interview reported in The Timesand other newspapers, he said:
My understanding is that the Government have accepted that we need a rather larger margin of unused manpower and resources.


Asked to define full employment, he said:
Beveridge thought it was 3 per cent. of unemployed. In the years since the war there has been a very much lower margin. My understanding is that we need a rather larger margin, and if my recollection is correct the Chancellor dealt with this in his speech.
Sir Leslie explained to the reporters that his speech, made to British business men 7,000 miles from home, was,
to remove from their minds some of the pessimistic and confused notions they may have on a policy which I consider to be successful.
If that terrible statement had been made nearer home and earlier in the week and had reached the Labour Party delegates at Scarborough, there would have been an explosion—and rightly so.
On 20th July, 1966, that fateful day in British history, the British Prime Minister said that he thought 2 per cent. unemployment was not unacceptable. Asked by an hon. Member, Did that mean 2 per cent. after redeployment? he said that it did. Half a million unemployed in my view is not acceptable, but now there is a suggestion of something far worse. Two per cent. unemployed means 500,000 out of work. Three per cent. unemployed—the Beveridge figure—means 750,000 signing on.
Quite apart from Sir Leslie's speech, unemployment—including Northern Ireland—has reached nearly 600,000, the highest for this season for 27 years, and it is admitted that it is likely to go higher still. Yet the Government could reduce this figure. There are many ways open to them of relaxing the squeeze. They could reduce hire-purchase deposits on such consumer goods as furniture, T.V. sets, washing machines and motor cars. The recent 5 per cent. reduction in deposits is nowhere near good enough. This would revive employment in these industries. The Government could bring forward higher pensions and family allowances, thus increasing purchasing power. They could reduce Purchase Tax now totalling £600 million a year. They could reduce Bank Rate, instead of increasing it as they did last week, and they could encourage the banks to be more forthcoming in loans to their customers.
Why do they not do this? Because they are frightened that if they did there would be inflation, a worsening in the deficit on our balance of payments and another run on the £. I say that it is possible to have one without the other. It is possible to relax the deflationary measures without a run on the £ if the Government are prepared to make really slashing and immediate reductions in our overseas arms expenditure, which is the main cause of our deficit on the balance of payments. This is the only way they can cut expenditure without hurting working people.
Secondly, they could do what 50 Lamour M.P.s recommended this summer in their pamphlet, "Beyond the Freeze". That is to take over with fair compensation £1,000 million of our £9,000 million overseas capital investments and sell them selectively. This, while no long-term solution, would meet the immediate situation and would end the pressure on our balance of payments and permit a return to the 320,000 unemployed figure we had until 20th July, 1966.
Then there should be selective control of imports. I am not merely referring to such things as one-armed bandits or fruit machines which we are importing from America. There are much more important things. Nearly 40 per cent. of our textiles are imported today. We have lost the world market. We cannot recapture that. But it least we could have the home market. Forty per cent. is being imported from low-wage countries such as Hong Kong and Portugal, where workers are making textiles in return for wages of 10s. and 9s. a day, respectively. We cannot compete with that. That is what is putting thousands of Lancashire operatives out of work at the moment.
Finally, I have said some critical things today about the Government. I may be accused of rocking the boat. I have come to the conclusion that, when one sees the boat heading straight for the rocks, true loyalty lies, not in sitting still and doing nothing, but in trying to regain the true, original, course on which the boat set out. As the late Hugh Dalton said in his autobiography, writing of Ramsay Mac-Donald's days in the 1931 crisis:
It would have been far better if we had been more loyal to our principles and less loyal to our leaders.

10.50 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: The House is very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party for introducing this debate on the earliest possible occasion. It is a particularly suitable moment to do so after just three years of government by the Labour Party. That period is long enough for us to be able to make a reasonable assessment of the progress which the Government have made in that time.
The position now is that sterling is at the lowest rate which is tolerable and is being supported by the Bank of England, both at the spot and at the forward rates. The dollar premium is at 30 per cent. This is the amount that people are prepared to pay to invest their money in other countries than our own. The trade figures for September were still bad and an unfavourable balance of £52 million was recorded. We were told that we would have a surplus on our balance of payments last year and again this year. It is now quite clear that we shall not get one. Most of the nation's investment portfolio has been liquidated in order to start to repay a part of our international obligations.
However, even by selling part of our national capital, for that is what it is, the amount that we have available is dwarfed by the size of our international debt, about £500 million to be repaid between 1968 and 1970. This is the plain position as to our external interests and obligations.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, our basic position at home is just as alarming, if not more so, and will extend far beyond the coming winter. Unemployment is at its highest October level since the war. Some 560,000 men and women are unemployed, representing 2·4 per cent of the labour force. It is true that there is an apparent underlying improvement in the latest figures, which we welcome. The fact remains that nobody pretends that unemployment will not rise to between 600.000 and 700,000 during the coming months and might even be more if the winter were to be very severe.
Hon. Members opposite are not too concerned about this. They take the long view. After all, these figures merely show that, so far from threatening the

nation with continuing unemployment, by creating the opportunity for a new breakthrough in export production they hold out the surest guarantee we have of full employment for a generation. That is surely what the position is. That is what the Prime Minister said just a year ago on 4th October at the Labour Party conference. I wonder which generation he was referring to. I am sure that those who are now unemployed and those who will become unemployed will draw no great comfort from that statement. They have had the Prime Minister's word for it that he does not believe in regulating demand by a pool of unemployment. We all well remember what the Prime Minister said before he came to power, that the one lesson of the past few years is that sterling will not be made strong by making the economy weak.
Further, we now find that the Prime Minister gets the congratulations of the Governor of the Bank of England for having the courage to reduce demand and create unemployment. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) mentioned this. The Prime Minister is said not to be very happy with the Press—it has this inconvenient habit of reporting what he says to different audiences and, worse still, of comparing what he does with what he promises. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said not so long ago, the Prime Minister is very inventive. That is a Butlerism, if ever there was one. We can be certain that there will always be some piece of bad luck which will explain the continuing poor performance of the economy and why we are always being blown off course.
Curiously enough, it is not the wretched performance of the economy that is so disturbing in the prospects for the coming months and the future, with the level of production now no better than it was at the beginning of 1965. Nor is it necessarily the many mistakes which the Government have made, starting with the import surcharge, going on with the Selective Employment Tax and the humiliating £50 travel allowance. After all, mistakes can always be corrected.
The real cause for concern is the complete collapse of confidence in the Government, both at home and overseas.


What is worse is that this is no temporary collapse of confidence, but one which will remain as long as the Government stay in office. This loss of confidence has risen partly because the word of the British Government just is not trusted and partly because the Government themselves have such a transparent distaste for the world of the free enterprise system and the profit motive in which it lives. [Interruption.] I recognise that hon. Members opposite think I am bound to claim that there has been a loss of confidence and that it cannot be established or quantified. But it can. Hon. Members opposite think that confidence is some ephemeral quality.

Mr. Heffer: I believe that the Government have far too much respect for private enterprise.

Mr. Hordern: I know that the hon. Gentleman has his own solution to the economic solution, one which is shared by some of his hon. Friends but, fortunately, not by enough of them. We shall make our own position perfectly clear. It is clear that hon. Members opposite think that confidence is something which occurs just according to the state of business men's livers. The Labour Government started with a very large fund of good will, which it has taken a lot of time and energy to dissipate. Confidence represents nothing more than the considered opinion of business men at home and overseas of the expectation of security and growth, in the form of higher profits, that they may obtain in any one country. It is to be measured by the willingness of foreigners to hold that country's currency and of industrialists to invest in the expectation of profit. It has in that respect virtually nothing whatever to do with the City, which merely provides the mechanism through which this confidence is expressed.
So the flight from the £ that occurred at the end of 1964 arose, as the Prime Minister has said, from confidence factors. It occurred, not because of the size of the deficit, which was well known, but because the Government, for party political purposes, insisted on referring to assets invested overseas in 1964 and amounting to over £400 million as if they were a liability. The Prime Minister was quite happy to boast of our assets when he got to New York, but that

only made it worse. The direct cost of that political stunt was £900 million in debt, which we are supposed to repay by 1970.
The Prime Minister often refers to us as selling the country short. It may be a comfort to him to realise that the extent to which he sold our country short can be precisely measured—£900 million. It does not help foreign confidence to see that people in this country are prepared to pay a premium of 30 per cent. to put their money elsewhere, nor that the level of private investment here is due to decrease by about 6 per cent. this year and to remain stagnant at that lower level as well. That is the latest forecast from the C.B.I.
It does not help confidence that the Government are always complaining about their bad luck and never have a word to say about their good fortune. We hear nothing about the favourable turn in the terms of trade to the tune of £255 million, nor of the adventitious flow of capital from the take-over of Rootes by Chryslers' and of Pye by Phillips. Yet it is this favourable change in the trade winds rather than any machinations of the Government which has brought about such improvement as there has been in the balance of payments.
Furthermore, apart from the balance of payments, in the trading account during the last three years performance should clearly have been a great deal better than it has been. I quote from the recent London and Cambridge Bulletin:
The movement between 1964 and 1966–67 for U.K. exports must be regarded as one which was achieved under conditions of external growth which were at least as favourable as it was reasonable to expect.
The improvement in exports has been smaller than that of any of our major industrial competitors. Whereas the improvement last year for the United Kingdom was 6½ per cent., for Germany the improvement was 14 per cent. and for Japan 16 per cent.
The volume and make-up of our imports in a period of squeeze continue to give cause for concern. Indeed nearly half of the growth of imports consisted of finished manufactures, although those represented only some 11 per cent. in 1964. I seem to remember some remarks about the Edwardian profit motive being


displaced by purposive planning, no doubt in the hard core industries—those were happy days!
If the Government do not take account of these factors, that can only mean that they can easily be disappointed by the trade figures in the coming months. There is reason to hope for an improvement in trade with Germany, Italy and France, but there is one cloud looming on the horizon which could easily pose great difficulties for our country and world trade as a whole.
The United States is our most important single national market and now absorbs about 20 per cent. of world exports. For many years the growth of the American economy has been of considerable assistance in boosting world trade, and the success of the Kennedy Round seemed to ensure a further reduction of tariffs as another step in this direction. Recently, however, there has been some discouraging talk from Congress about imposing quotas on textiles, steel and other products. If such quotas were to be imposed, the Kennedy Round would be thrown to the wind.
It is very strange that if the Communist world were to be asked to nominate a way to disrupt world trade and the capitalist system, it would undoubtedly start by getting Congress to impose quotas on imports and the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. The second of these is already happening through the reluctance of Congress to allow higher taxation. Bank Rate here has already had to be raised to 6 per cent., and if interest rates continue to rise in the United States, they will certainly have to do so here. I sympathise with the Chancellor in this predicament; He has enough problems to contend with without the vagaries of Congress in an election year.
To this disturbing trend must also be added the doubts, now emerging, about our physical capacity to increase exports. The key to increasing exports necessarily lies in investment, but as a proportion of the gross national product private investment lagged well behind our main industrial competitors. In Japan the figure was 22 per cent. while in West Germany it was 25 per cent. and here only 15 per cent.
What is even more striking is the composition of the total investment between

the public and private sectors. When we left office, private investment stood at £612 million a year while public investment was running at £456 million a year. The position now is that private investment has declined slightly while public investment has risen by £82 million to £538 million. At this rate public investment will actually exceed private investment in two and a half years. I know that hon. Members opposite see nothing wrong in this, but the plain fact is that we cannot export houses, hospitals and schools and, welcome though this investment is on social grounds, it does practically nothing to help us pay our way in the world.
The Government have done their best to stimulate exports and investment by cajolery and persuasion. We have had the National Plan and its collapse; we have had declarations of intent and productivity conferences. What we have not had and what we shall never get from this Government is the realisation that business men will invest only if they believe that the profit which they will earn, after tax, will make it worth their while to do so. This is supported by a piece in the Daily Mail today in the business section. It is a quotation from that admirable man, Mr. de Vigier, Chairman of Acrow. He was asked to attend a committee inquiring into the alarming rise in imported engineering goods.
His reply is a model of what all should say to any Minister on every occasion.
'I do not believe in wasting my time with official committee meetings which seldom result in positive action'.
He was then able to point out in precise forms what the Government could do to help. Hon. Members opposite could learn a great deal from that article.
Businessmen see both company and personal taxes up by £1,000 million. They see Government expenditure rising inexorably, with a record borrowing requirement and the certainty of higher taxation to come. They see ever more Government interference in steel, in transport and in the I.R.C. and in the new enabling Bill to allow the Government to intervene in industry. We have the new Secretary of State for Economic Affairs declaring with pride that he is an interventionist, and this from a Cabinet composed of men none


of whom has ever had to make a commercial decision in his life and none of whom will ever be asked to do so.
It is no wonder that confidence is at its lowest point and no wonder that the brain drain has become a flood and will continue to increase. One can speak only from one's own observations; I was in the United States in April, looking at some of the technologically advanced companies throughout that continent. In every one there were British scientists and technologists every one of whom said that he wished to return to this country, if only levels of taxation were reduced so that his real prospects could be improved. This observation is confirmed by the Jones Report which said that one-third of the average annual output of engineers and technologists emigrated. Surely there can be no clearer demonstration of the present lack of confidence.
Where do hon. Members opposite stand? Do they want to take a still larger proportion of the gross national product for public expenditure?

Hon. Members: indicated assent.

Mr. Hordern: Of course they do; they are nodding assent. That is where we are divided. We on this side of the House believe in lower taxation for its own sake—because it stimulates saving and productivity and therefore growth. It is from the growth in the economy that we can afford higher social services, and this we proved in office.
We believe in cutting Government expenditure. We should not have had to take on an extra 46,000 civil servants, and we should not even have had a Land Commission or the I.R.C. I do not believe that the Government will introduce selectivity into the social services and I do not believe that those hon. Members now present want them to do so. Nor will the Government undertake a proper reform of the trade unions—I am certain that hon. Members opposite do not want them to do that. We are fully committed to both.
There is no easy, dramatic solution to the Government's predicament, certainly not on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)—I am not sure whether he was suggesting devaluation or not. All that

can be said is that the despised methods of stop-go have had to be applied in every country and in every case have eventually worked through to the benefit of the balance of payments. Italy, Germany and Japan all provide recent examples of this.
In fact, the prospects for the coming winter are not as bad as was at first feared. The Government have pumped some more money into the economy and have relaxed hire-purchase restrictions. Consumer expenditure has risen and the motor industry seems to be making a partial recovery. But there are no signs yet of a recovery in the capital goods sector—hon. Members should ask the machine tool industry, that vital industry, whether production and exports are to rise over this year. Investment is stagnant and looks as though it will remain so for some time to come. It is stagnant because so many manufacturers cannot see a worth-while profit. Unique among our competitors, our industry is faced with an antipathy towards profits from the Government and it is this attitude more than anything else which guarantees a stagnant economy for as long as the present Government last.
We can be sure of Ministerial exhortations, productivity conferences. The Prime Minister can appear on television every hour on the hour, like some cuckoo out of a clock, but none of that will be any use at all. They just do not live in the world of the free enterprise competitive economy. They have lost the confidence of our creditors overseas, they have lost the confidence of industry at home, they are losing the confidence of the people. To coin a phrase: "Brothers, they're on their way".

11.10 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): It is appropriate that this morning my maiden speech from this Box should follow on a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, because when I first came to the House my maiden speech as a back bencher followed immediately upon a speech made by his predecessor.
I would, however, hasten to assure my hon. Friends that this is the only way in which I see my political career being


in any way tied to the fortunes of the Liberal Party. Before I begin answering some of the points made, I would like to present to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who has written to the Leader of the Liberal Party, explaining that he could not be here this morning. I would also like to present the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, who at this moment is travelling down by air from the North.
It is indicative, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said, that these are not the only absences—that the new dynamic Leader of the Conservative Party is not with us. Can we really express any surprise at this, since at his conference, far from offering any alternative policy for dealing with the situation in which we find ourselves, he took the line that this was nothing to do with him and that it was not part of his duty to provide an alternative policy.
It is small wonder in view of this attitude that not only his own personal standing but the standing of his party is where it is in public esteem. What we are confronted with is a Conservative Party which sees its future tied, not to its economic policy, not to the quality of its leadership, but to the vagaries of the long-term weather forecast.
As a Government we are particularly grateful for the opportunity to return from Recess and discuss the employment and economic situations. It is virtually three months since we had an opportunity of a reappraisal. It is imperative that what is happening at the moment should be seen within the context of the overall Government approach to economic policy. All manner of solutions have been offered, through newspapers and at meetings. "Instant solutions" are provided to our problems, but most, when they are followed through and explored in greater depth, do not stand up to close analysis. They are all right if one treats the problems individually, but in an interdependent economy, such as ours, such solutions are not capable of solving our overall economic problems.
In this context I was particularly glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party saying that

he appreciated that devaluation could be nothing better than a short-term remedy and did not contain any long-term solution. He asked about the Chancellor and his statement at Rio. What the Chancellor said was that he is willing to reexamine the position of sterling given two provisos. They are that the interests of the holders of sterling are safeguarded and that such a re-examination contributes to the solution of the general problem of world currency reserves. We want to find a solution to the general problem of world liquidity and are willing to be flexible in our approach if this would be beneficial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) put forward what in essence is the reflation argument. The danger is that reflation of the type which my hon. Friend has put forward is very close to an inflation argument. This is the sort of predicament that any Government is in when it is working within the limitations imposed, (a) by balance of payments and (b) by the structural nature of our economy, which runs us into these periodic inflationary bouts.
If we did what my hon. Friend asks, if we conducted a general form of reflation, whether through the type of policy that he has advocated or through some similar policy, we would probably ease the position this winter, but as surely as we would ease the position this winter we would guarantee that the position would be worse in winters in future.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friends say "no", but I will go on to say why. One cannot in one sentence explain a whole speech. The point that I am trying to make is that the situation confronting us now is part of a long-term situation. It is not just a short-term occurrence, but something that has to be seen against long-term strategy. Basically, we are confronted with a long-term malaise and there is no immediate economic wonder drug available to us, such as reflation or devaluation, which will solve the problem.
The basic problem which has faced successive Governments throughout this century has been that in our employment pattern we have a pyramidal structure of employment. There are high peaks


of employment in London, the Midlands, and the South-East, peaks where, not only is the employment rate high, but where the activity rate is high too. This is of as great significance as the problem of unemployment and unemployment rate.
At the same time, in our pyramid structure, in the outlying regions there are areas of law activity rates and high unemployment. This was not greatly helped by the 13 years in which the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office because, far from helping to close the gap that already existed, they widened it by the nature of their policies. The rate of growth of jobs in areas containing development areas such as Scotland, Wales, the West, the North and North-West, was only 6 per cent. during the 13 years compared with 15½ per cent. in other regions. The areas which were already prosperous were proportionately more than increasing their prosperity, while the development areas and outlying areas were still dragging behind.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the growth of new jobs. Would he not bear in mind that during the years of real growth, s1960–64, 157,000 new jobs were created in Scotland, which is very much higher than his own Government's forecast for the equivalent period now?

Mr. Williams: We all understand the stimuli that were operating in that period up to 1964, and we all understand the sort of policy which this would induce in hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, one of the misfortunes is that it was very largely the solution to a political problem that has led us to much of our economic difficulties today.
Against a structure that is so substantially different in the regions and the areas of prosperity, if we had a general reflation, as suggested, there is no doubt that in these prosperous areas the relatively shallow pool of unemployment would very quickly be sucked up and cleared.

An Hon. Member: Good.

Mr. Williams: Of course it is good, but there is no secondary pool available, because of the high activity rate. There is no possible source of would-be workers,

such as there are in development areas, who have never in the past had jobs. I am thinking of the Midlands, Mid-Wales, and the North. The activity rates are high, there is no pool to call on and the consequence is that in these areas here is wage competition. Because there is a shortage of workers there is a competition for those available, and because of the competition, wages rise and there is inflationary pressure. A firm cannot fulfil export orders because it is short of workers, and because wages are high there is an increase in imports.
The consequence would be that within these localities there would be no problem of unemployment, but over full employment with inflation getting at the balance of payments situation; so at the same time—this is the paradox of our position—there would be almost over-prosperous conditions in these localities and relatively high unemployment in the outlying regions, because the type of unemployment in the outlying regions is not just created by short-term market conditions, but is contributed to very substantially by structural factors, such as depletion in old industries and modernisation of old basic industries. Consequently, while we were running into overheating in part of the economy, not only would we have not even sucked up the whole pool of unemployment but we would have made no impact on the secondary pool—the people who have never worked in the past, the people whose presence is revealed not in unemployment figures but in the low activity rate figures for areas like the South-West, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the growth of the development areas during our 13 years in office. Would he say what growth is now proceeding in the development areas?

Mr. Williams: I shall come to that in a moment. I shall be moving to the positive side of the argument later.
The outcome of such a policy as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and by many other people would be that the areas which are least in need, with the lowest level of unemployment, would get most benefit, while the outlying regions which are most in need—Wales, the South-West, Scotland and the North—and want most help


in employment would get the least benefit and would soon, as a result of the inflation in the big industrial complexes, be condemned to another wave of unemployment as remedial measures would have to be taken to deal with the balance of payments situation.
It is not that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East have not been considered; they have. But for these reasons we think that the solutions to our problems must be more profound in terms of policy and more selective in the areas of impact. My hon. Friend's solution was global. We must try to get the jobs where pools of labour exist. Inevitably, they must, by the nature of the long term situation, be long term solutions.
Our approach is to have a policy not of general reflation but of regional reflation. If we reflate in areas in which there is basic unemployment, we may get rid of the deflationary unemployment, but we shall still be left with the hard core unemployment. Our policy is to achieve regional reflation coupled with an industrial and economic policy of regional regeneration. I am sure that members of the Liberal Party who represent such areas will realise the importance of this distinction.

Mr. John Biffen: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and moves to what he calls the positive side of his argument, would he recall that the hon. Member for Salford, East spent a great deal of time in discussing the speech of Sir Leslie O'Brien? Would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to assert that the Government stand by that speech and have no intention of sacking Sir Leslie O'Brien?

Mr. Williams: Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East will be satisfied a little later in my speech. If the hon. Gentleman had preserved patience a little longer, both hon. Members might have been satisfied—or, at least, they might have been answered, if not satisfied. I realise that there is a distinction between the two.
I deal now with the points about a larger pool of unemployment. The Government's point is that during this phase

of re-expansion of the economy we must hold back on overheating in areas like the Midlands, London and the South-East. As a long-term policy, we have accepted, as I think all hon. Members have accepted, the need for redeployment. We have been asked whether the figure of 2 per cent. accepted by the Prime Minister is before or after redeployment. This misunderstands the nature of redeployment. Redeployment is not a once-for-all thing. We are going through a phase in which we are having to shed a lot of surplus fat in some areas of the economy. There is an initial major problem of redeployment which was never tackled by hon. Members opposite. The problem of redeployment in a volatile, technologically evolving community will obviously be permanent. We do not have redeployment once and for all. We must continuously redeploy from old industries into new industries.
It is in this sense that we say that there may be a larger short-term pool of people moving from job to job. This is inevitable in the type of economy which we are developing. As long as it is short-term—and I mean very short-time —the period of transition has been provided for. That was the thesis behind the policies, which hon. Members supported, for wage-related unemployment benefits and redundancy payments.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would my hon. Friend repeat that it is the policy to have 2 per cent. unemployment—500,000 out of work—for a long period? That is what he has just said.

Mr. Williams: No, I did not say that. I referred to comments made by the Prime Minister and tried to explain the background against which this problem had to be judged. My point is that in a more dynamic economy, whichever party is in power, there will be more movement of labour between industries and job. Therefore, there will inevitably also be an increase in short-term unemployment. I do not think that there is anything basically unsocialistic about this. If hon. Members say that they resist this, then they are saying that they resist the whole process of modernisation of the economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members have asked me to deal with the point. I pointed out that I would be giving an answer. I also said that I did not anticipate that it would necessarily satisfy all my hon. Friends.
The Government have already taken many steps towards achieving this objective. At present, we are spending approximately £190 million a year on selective aid to the development areas to help to build up employment in the areas which are desperately in need. The first step was to widen the development areas because of the obvious inadequacy of the former areas shown by the results while hon. Members opposite were in office. But, having created the wider areas, our next job was not merely to provide inducements for capital intensive industry. The capital inducements have tended to bring big new projects to the development areas, but a small amount of employment. Therefore, we felt it imperative to encourage not only the new technologically advanced industries but the labour-intensive industries.
It was for that reason that we supplemented our longer standing investment grants and building grants, which are very much biased in favour of the development areas, with the regional employment premium. One hon. Member referred to the figure of £190 million. The regional employment premium, which starts this month, will represent £100 million of that, which will be distributed in this way. Scotland will receive approximately £40 million; Wales £12 million; the North £28 million; the North-West £18 million. Manufacturers in these areas will receive a rebate of 30s. per man and 15s. per woman employed in manufacturing. In addition, we have moved in our advance factories, and we have had stricter I.D.C. control for these areas. A fact conveniently overlooked by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) when talking about Government policy was that in the last four years when his party was in office, Scotland and Wales received only 26 per cent. of all I.D.C. approvals whereas in 1965 and 1966 they received 34 per cent.
The Leader of the Liberal Party spoke of the need for retraining. We agree that there is an overwhelming need for retraining if we are to have redeployment and the short-term movement of labour. There must be facilities to equip the labour to get the new jobs and to meet the needs of the new emerging industries. For this reason we have doubled the throughput of the G.T.C.s—and we

recognise that that is not enough. One cannot institutionally solve such a problem overnight. Consequently, we have supplemented it with the doubling of training grants in the development areas to encourage training within industry. When I was in Scotland with the Prime Minister last week I saw an interesting experiment in the pooling of training facilities by several firms. It was most enterprising and most encouraging in its potential for other areas. That would be outside the normal G.T.C. structure. We must, therefore, be careful not to judge facilities for training purely by the numbers going through the G.T.C.s, otherwise we can be misled. It may not even be the most efficient way of reaching the targets.
In addition to the overall measures, we have taken certain measures intended to have an impact this winter. But at all times we have to bear in mind that in introducing policies for the winter we must not imperil the long-term situation or force ourselves back into facing the same problem again in another winter or another two winters.
In addition to the general measures which I have mentioned, we have approved an increase in public works schemes—a mini-works scheme, as it has been called—to improve the infrastructure of the economy, worth £20 million. This will provide jobs, but, more important, it will begin to provide certain necessary minor improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) knows the problems of many of the Welsh valleys. They need, if not motorways, improvements in bottlenecks which would be of great assistance in improving the accessibility of the area to manufacturers and employers. This mini-works scheme is intended to do that, and in the process it will also supply some jobs.
We have deferred pit closures which were due to take place for the last quarter of the year and we have also made the point that that is not necessarily only a one-quarter reprieve. The N.C.B. is to have discussions—Lord Robens is having discussions—with the chairmen of the regional councils to see what is needed for the following quarter and what will he the long-term impact of the closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East will also observe that the improved National Insurance benefits will come


into effect at the end of the month. He mentioned this point.
The overall effect of those policies—long-term but not necessarily short-term —will be to bring new industry to the development areas and, equally important, to keep the industry already there. It is against that background that R.E.P. should be seen this winter. I do not suggest that it will lead to an immediate influx of new jobs in a matter of months. Business investment does not take place as quickly as that. But business disinvestment can take place very quickly, and many of the problems of the outlying areas arise from the collapse of firms already there. In the Rhondda about 25 per cent. of the present unemployment has resulted from the collapse of a few firms within the last two years. We believe that it is every bit as important to keep the jobs that are there as to bring in new jobs, because every factory that closes means that one extra factory must be provided.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member pointed out that R.E.P. is for the benefit of the manufacturing industries. What will the non-manufacturing industries in the areas receive except the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Williams: Our belief is that R.E.P. will work by enabling firms which receive it to meet competition. It is not intended to be a direct subsidy for the manufacturer to put in his pocket to bolster his profits. It is intended to improve his competitive position vis-à-vis firms outside the development area so that he can hold his share of the market or obtain a bigger share. This situation in general does not apply to service industries. The argument that competition has to be met from outside the development area applies to manufacturing industries but not in general to service industries. This is one reason why it is felt that R.E.P. would not be appropriate to meet that need. I do not think that it would improve the overall efficiency of the area.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I have given way several times and have attempted to meet several of the points raised by hon. Members. For that reason my speech has been even more disjointed than my speeches nor-

mally are. But I should like to deal with the signs of success of our policy. Some hon. Members have asked whether there have been any such signs. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) had doubts about it, although he admitted that there was a certain upturn in the employment position. I am told that the only tears ever shed by the Tories over the unemployed were shed by them last Thursday when they saw that the basic position had improved.

Mr. Hordern: All I said was that there was a favourable underlying trend in the unemployment figures. But the figures are still the worst since the war, and that is the kind of argument which the hon. Member and the Government must meet.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member still admits that there has been some improvement in the underlying trend, which is the point which I wish to establish. Individual indicators of improvement obviously cannot mean too much. Movements in statistics are too fine to be individually significant. But if, taken together, these indicators suggest an improvement, then we have something of much greater significance. In the unemployment figures there was an overall change in the basic position of a fall of 22,000, but equally, at the same time, there was an improvement, seasonally adjusted, in vacancies of 11,000. There seems to be a certain easing. No one pretends that this will make a tremendous inroad into the present level of unemployment but the important point is that the underlying trend is not only for a pause but for a turn.
This is supplemented by earlier signs. Hon. Members referred to investment and production. The second quarter showed a slight improvement in the index of industrial production on the first quarter and the last three months show a slight improvement on the previous three months. These are small movements, but they are movements in the right direction and they are consistent with the movements which we are seeing in employment. In the three months up to August, retail sales showed an increase of 1 per cent., which will probably be accelerated as a result of the casing of hire-purchase restrictions.
We all know how important the car industry is to the economy, and not just


to certain localities, and car sales have shown a sharp increase through new registrations in August. Hire-purchase contracts were up by 36 per cent. in the three months to September. According to reports—although I have no official statement—the car industry is extremely happy with the position as a result of the early days of the Motor Show. It seems probable that the car industry may again be one of the leaders to an industrial acceleration in our activity in this country.
House building is also showing a firm upward trend. In many parts of the country it is at peak production. When I was in the North of Scotland with the Prime Minister, I was told that certain localities could not place extra load on the construction industry at the moment because it is working at peak capacity. That does not alter the fact that there are other areas where this does not apply. It is a patchy situation. Nevertheless, the situation in house building and in construction is again promising and moving in the appropriate direction.
Investment is also showing a similar characteristic. The Board of Trade investment intentions survey which came out last week—on 18th October—shows that the rate of investment is higher than anticipated and is expected to improve further next year. If businessmen intend undertaking this investment it would appear that there is a greater optimism amongst business men than perhaps the hon. Gentleman may like to admit.
So on the evidence of all these various statistics it would seem that we are moving into a phase of industrial expansion and we are moving into it perhaps in a state of greater fitness because of the greater advance we as a nation have made in productivity. It is significant that output per man hour since 1965 has risen by 7 per cent. in this country, compared with only 3 per cent. for the comparable period 1960–63. It means that our industry is more efficient; it means it is more competitive vis-à-vis those abroad.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: It is transparent hypocrisy to use these figures of investment increases as increases in productivity, as though level of general

efficiency has been increasing. It is absolute nonsense that we should try to show that because we have fewer people working in service industries the overall average of productivity has gone up. Because we have taken out those people from service industries does not mean productivity has increased.

Mr. Williams: It was of manufacturing industry I was speaking. This increase of 7 per cent. is in the manufacturing sector. I was excluding the service sector for this very reason that it was open to this criticism. The increase of output per man hour in manufacturing has gone up 7 per cent. since 1965, compared with 3 per cent. in the earlier period.—[Interruption.]—It is not a good thing for hon. Gentlemen always to underestimate the importance of improvements which have been made. I can understand their being cynical about one or two statistics, but when we have an improvement in the economic position it is just as well for us to recognise it.
As a result of these improvements in productivity, as a result of such things as the prices and incomes policy in holding the cost of living more steady, we improve the long-term competitive power, we improve our position vis-à-vis our competitors.
To deal with a point of detail, the hon. Gentleman touched on the balance of payments. As was rightly said, the balance of payments situation at the moment is perhaps less happy than it appeared in the first half of the year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I remind my hon. Friend about Sir Leslie O'Brien.

Mr. Williams: In the first part of the year we had reached a situation where as a nation we were paying our way. However, in the field of international trade there are some imponderables which are not within the control of the Government and the picture of the next few months depends on factors not within our control. It depends, for instance, partially on Suez, when it is decided that Suez will be reopened again. Remember, the cost in balance of payments terms of the closure of Suez is £20 million a month. That alone is significant. That is a position not within the control of this Government but which has an impact


on the ability of the Government to manœuvre economically. In the same way the general level of world trade depends on what happens in governmental decisions not here at Westminster but in Germany and in the United States and what is happening in their trade position.
However, the indications at present would seem to be that the world trade position should continue improving during the next 12 months, and—the hon. Gentleman referred to next spring—the prospects are certainly better for next spring.
There are other imponderables, such things as strikes in the export industries. I am sure that the dockers, just as much as we, dislike the fact that industrial action which they may feel they have to take will have an impact on our trade position. Nevertheless, it does have that impact, and we have to take that into account, and as something not within the control of this Government.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition has waxed eloquent about trade union reform. I seem to recollect that he himself was at one stage Minister of Labour, round about 1959, and I seem to recollect that when he was a Minister the number of hours lost through strikes was double the number lost in the first three years of the Labour Government, and if there was a time when he thought action was necessary it was in his period of office, not ours.
It is economically dangerous in the short term to make any major change in policy because all the things that people have been asked to make sacrifices for and to work for could be endangered if we ran into another period of inflation during the winter as a result of a panic decision to meet a short-term situation. For this reason we as a Government have said we intend to fulfil our pledge to achieve the long-term objectives and the first long-term industrial objective is continual growth, and it is from this policy we refuse to be diverted.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am glad to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). I am sorry that he rose so early, because there is a

number of questions I wanted to put to him and which I hoped he would answer openly in public. I had a little difficulty in hearing what he said because often his back was turned to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and he seemed to be more determined to address the opposition in his own party than to address the Opposition benches.
I was going to congratulate him on his new job and to say I wish him well. Despite what he said about the Leader of the Conservative Party, I still do so, because I think he will stand as a monument of misstatement, and the country will judge—it will have a chance of judging in a number of places quite soon.
The hon. Gentleman, and the Leader of the Liberal Party, whom I congratulate on bringing forward this debate and on many of the comments he made, had the effrontery to state that the Conservatives would do less damage in Opposition than in Government. I wonder how many of the unemployed in North Devon, Salford, in Manchester, in Gorton particularly—and there are a great many of them—will agree. They will soon judge. The House enjoys the quips of the Leader of the Liberal Party, but I would suggest that he is much better when he lets go his Jeremiads and concentrates a bit more on the new Jerusalem.
With some of the points he made today anyone who is against Socialism would agree. The Socialist policies and maladministration of the Government over the last three years have brought the economy to its present state. The lack of confidence which industry has in good government in large measure has produced the unemployment which we see today. If the hon. Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) have their way, that confidence will diminish still further. Because of that lack of confidence, we have less investment, and it is on investments that the country's economy expands.
I regret that the two opposition parties are bickering between themselves, rather than concentrating upon the attack on Socialism. Above all, it is Socialist policies which are bringing this country to near economic ruin, since we depend


entirely on exports from private enterprise.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred to devaluation. However, that could only be a very short-term remedy at the expense of all those who live on small fixed incomes. What we must see is a cut in Government expenditure and an increase in incentives, and we have said at our party conference that we intend to do away with the absurd Selective Employment Tax.
The Minister referred to the premiums which will be given to manufacturing industries in the development areas. Some of those industries are engaged in processing expensive imported raw materials, yet those who are engaged in dealing with exports and in servicing those exports pay Selective Employment Tax and receive no benefit from R.E.P.
I wish to refer to something which is much more deep in the heart of Lancashire. I have the privilege of representing part of Liverpool, which is often regarded as a city on its own, and not as part of Lancashire. Liverpool is a development area, whereas Lancashire as a whole is not. However much better the long-term future of Merseyside may be—and I believe that it is better, thanks to the great Ford factory which was brought in by the Conservatives—

Mr. Heifer: And thanks to the policy of the Labour Council.

Mr. Tilney: It was the policy of the Conservative Administration which denied the expansion of Fords in the South-East and brought it to Merseyside. Once the present damaging dock strike can be ended, I believe that the future for Merseyside is bright.
Whatever happens in the long term in Lancashire, even as far away as the North-East, affects the well-being of Liverpool. I am a great believer in regional development, and I want to see a devolution of power to the regions. Too much of Britain's local government is balkanised and looks weakly and in vain to the centre at Whitehall. Lancashire often is not sufficiently interested in contiguous areas where there are different trades.
Talk of cotton in Liverpool is muted today compared with before the war, yet the decline of the textile industry affects the trade figures of Merseyside. What is the Government's policy on the textile trade? The Minister referred to regional regeneration, but those of us who remember clothes rationing thought that at least our minimum clothing requirements would be manufactured in this country, whatever else happened. However, I understand that 50 per cent. of the home market is now covered by imports. In the case of sheetings, the figure is 60 per cent. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Surely it is too great. What is the Minister's policy on anti-dumping procedures? I am told that many of them are not effective, and that it is difficult to get the burden of proof.
The effects on Lancashire of the squeeze, of the panic measures taken in July of last year, and even of the miniskirt, are considerable. Do the Government consider that the global quotas are too high? Has there not been a miscalculation? Under their plan, the Government expected the economy to expand, whereas it has been stagnant. What is the policy of the Government after 1970, and how can the Minister expect industry in Lancashire to plan ahead and instal machinery when they do not know what is to happen after 1970?
Writing to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), the President of the Board of Trade said recently:
This limitation will last until the end of 1970 and it provides the industry with information of the maximum competition they may have to face from these countries. … I accept that the permitted level, which would have been tolerable in normal trading conditions, seems intolerable to the industry when times are as difficult as they have been over the last 12 months. But the difficulty which we had in inducing exporting countries to accept these limits without retaliating on our own export trade was so great that I see no prospect of securing any kind of international agreement to a further cut in our cotton textile imports.
That is a long way from the Labour Party's promises of the 1966 General Election.
The Conservative Government put £30 million into the textile industry. Now, because of the policy of the present Government, some of the re-equipped mills are closing down.
The main point which I wish to stress is the great differences between the treatment of the development area and new towns and that of other areas of Lancashire, particularly the north-east. Those differences are too sharp. I have already referred to the premium which will be paid in respect of employees in manufacturing. Those will accentuate the differences between the "black" areas, the development areas, and the "grey" areas which are now becoming blacker.
Can the Minister say how the statistics of unemployment are calculated? Am I right in saying that married women who are unemployed and not covered by insurance are not in those statistics? Do they take account of the great migration which there has been from some of the towns in Lancashire? I accept that development projects must be steered away from the Midlands and the South-East to areas of surplus resources. However, in Lancashire, there are formed communities with churches, schools, and social conditions which have a special character, not only in terms of skilled operatives but in many others. Those areas are slowly bleeding to death, and London does not seem to care. The textile workers are worried, as are the footwear employees. What does the Minister intend to do about it—[Interruption.] Instead of just talking to his neighbour on the Front Bench, perhaps he will listen to what I have to say.
It is said that communications are bad in parts of Lancashire. What is the Minister doing about that problem, especially when the pull of the development areas and new towns will be greater in the future as a result of the regional employment premiums?
In regions such as that which I have been discussing, the differentials are too sharp between the development areas and the rest. We cannot wait for the Hunt Committee. Will not the Government say something to bring back confidence and, as a result, bring in investment to the whole of Lancashire?

12 noon.

Mr. James Dickens: I have only a short time in which to speak this morning before the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) winds up this interesting debate, but I begin by saying that it is entirely

appropriate that, on its return from the Summer Recess, the House should, at. once turn its attention to the ecenomy and the plight of the unemployed.
In his opening speech the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) made a number of points with which I agreed. It was a stimulating speech. In his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) made a contribution which I think brings out very clearly the difficulties which an able and conscientious junior Minister faces when he is given a hopeless brief to deliver, for the Government's policy is not only profoundly unsatisfactory to many of us on this side of the House, but is one which, in many respects, is becoming almost indefensible.
There are, I think, two important points which one must make, however briefly. First, since 1964 the Government's attitude has been to try to maintain this country's position as a great international banking and military Power. Over the past three years the Government have tried to do this against a background of certain basic electoral commitments. These included the maintenance of full employment and economic expansion. When it has come to the crunch over the past three years we have seen that they have jettisoned the concept of full employment and rapid economic growth which we had before 1964. They have done this in deference to the maintenance of the rôle of the £ sterling at its present parity, as an international reserve currency, and because of this country's imperial position as a world military Power.
The policy which the Government have been pursuing must be reversed because during the last three years they have, on successive occasions, in 1964, in 1965, and latterly in 1966, been forced to adopt what can only be described as the traditional Tory methods of deflation. I know that the Government have introduced a number of modest social and industrial reforms, and a few important ones, too, but the fact is that on central economic strategy the Government's policy and that of the Tory Opposition are almost identical.
Secondly, what can we do about the present situation? This morning my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East


(Mr. Frank Allaun) set out a constructive alternative policy which commands a wide and growing measure of support on this side of the House and throughout the country. It will not do for my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—or any other Minister on the Treasury Bench—simply to say, "When you think about my hon. Friend's arguments you will see that there is nothing in them". This is not the case. Our position is not only well thought out, but is one which, as part of a comprehensive package of alternative methods of dealing with the situation, provides the only constructive policy which will save this Government over the next three years.
When I contrast the rag bag of gimmicks brought out by the Chancellor at Scarborough with the alternatives which my hon. Friend has been arguing this morning and in earlier debates, there is no doubt that our policy is profound and important. Indeed, when we hear the Chancellor dismissing all our policies as a succession of gimmicks, and when we hear the former Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) describe them as hare-brained, as he did recently in The Times, we can be confident that our policies are about right.
What are these policies? First, we must take immediate steps to realise a section of our overseas portfolio investments, not for the purpose of adding these to our resources, but to use the money to pay off the £642 million that we owe to the International Monetary Fund and the Swiss central bankers and to buy back some of the more speculative sterling balances. We must realise these investments so that we have freedom to plan our economy without advice from the I.M.F. The advice which we receive from this organisation and from all other banking institutions at home and abroad has been shown, when measured against the harsh test of economic reality, to be unsound. Fair compensation to existing holders would, of course, be paid in non-convertible sterling bonds.
Secondly, we must stop the outflow of private capital to countries abroad. The Chancellor has taken certain steps to do this but there is a long way to go. If, for the last three years, we were to add the net outflow of capital to our military expenditure overseas, we would find that

they more than account for the total deficit on the balance of payments.
Under the present Government the net outflow of private capital has risen during the last few years. What is most significant, though, is that the money has gone mainly to developed and not to developing countries. The Board of Trade Journal for 30th June last contains a comprehensive analysis of British overseas investment policy. The first conclusion to be drawn from this document is that under this Government private direct investment has risen from £116 million in the alleged crisis year of 1964 to £135 million in 1966. This excludes unremitted profits. One sees that a feature of this investment was a resumption of the rising trend of investment in South Africa which, as in each of the previous three years, was second in amount only to Australia. One sees, too, that the outflow in 1963–65 was two and a half times that of the previous three years. Why, it may be asked, should a Labour Government and a Socialist Chancellor allow private direct investment from this country to build up a Fascist, racialist economy in South Africa at the expense, in part at least, of full employment and economic growth at home?
Thirdly, import quotas should be introduced to cover the growing imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. A 10 per cent. cut would save £250 million.
Finally, there is the problem of military expenditure overseas. Something has been done to ease the situation, but we must do very much more. We must ensure that by 1970 the level of our defence spending is reduced to 4 per cent. of the gross national product, a figure comparable to that of our trade rivals in the European Economic Community.
Those are the four things which must be done. First, we must liquidate some of our overseas portfolio investments. Secondly, we must take further steps to restrict the outflow of capital and confine it to developing countries and the investment of unremitted profits elsewhere. This would save £150 million per annum, and we must pursue this policy until the level of new capital formation in this country has reached that of France and Germany, namely, about 25 per cent. of the gross national product,


over a five-year period. Thirdly, the introduction of import quotas, and, finally, cutting our overseas military expenditure.
All those fit into a pattern, but there are two further points to be considered. First, we must establish a National Investment Board to redirect our overseas investment, to build up investment at home in the regions and generally. Secondly, all this must be done under a new National Plan. I am told that a new National Plan will not be introduced in the foreseeable future. The Times said recently that the Government had now decided not to introduce a White Paper about the revised National Plan for the five years to 1972. This is very unsatisfactory.
What I have said sets out in general terms a broad alternative policy which commands the support of at least 70 of my hon. Friends. It commands a wide and increasing measure of support throughout the country, and I put it to my hon. Friend in the friendliest possible way that if the Government do not show a willingness to move towards our position in the near future, they will meet with justifiably deep and increasing hostility from the benches behind them.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Comment has already been made by hon. Members in other parts of the House at the fact that the Government spokesman felt that he must rise so early that the Government could not possibly answer many of the significant points which have been made during our proceedings. In particular, I regret that for this reason there will be no Government reply to the courageous speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens).
The country will be as greatly disappointed, as the House has appeared to be with the Government's attitude to the economic situation, as revealed this morning. I congratulate those eight or nine members of the Conservative Opposition—there are now only five in the Chamber—who, during the course of the morning, have shown some concern at the economic situation by being present.
The House as a whole has clearly been disappointed with the Government's attitude, and I am sure that the country will be, for the simple reason that no

plan, no projection—not even a catalogue of Government assumptions—has been revealed. This is not the first opportunity which the Government or the Cabinet have had to make their attitude clear. Many of us—innocents as we have proved to be—hoped that when the Prime Minister, in his new capacity of economic overlord, met the National Economic Development Corporation on 9th October he would have taken the opportunity to indicate the Government's plans.
If "plans" sounds too full of certainty for these difficult times, Liberals would have been content with a series of projections, or even a list of Government assumptions. I protest that the difficult list of contingencies which face the Government at the moment—particularly the indefinite closure of the Suez Canal—is no excuse for their failing to come forward at least with some alternative plans, so that the country may share in some common purpose. Any Government of this island trading nation has always had to include a wide margin for contingencies of one sort or another, which are always cropping up. If Suez is regarded as an outsize contingency, let us have alternative plans, or projections of policy. We have had none.
Most of the significant questions which my right hon. Friend the leader of my party asked at the outset of the debate have substantially gone unanswered. However, in the light of the Government's reply, the country is clearly faced with the prospect of having to soldier on according to the prescription of the last few months. Therefore, the only constructive questions which can be asked at this stage, and on which some views can be put forward, concern the benefit that we might get out of the medicine which has, unfortunately, been prescribed for us.
First, there is the question of unemployment. It seems to me to be quite impossible to substantiate the gloss which the Government choose to put on the recent utterance in the Argentine of the Governor of the Bank of England. If Sir Leslie O'Brien had wished to commend to the people of South America the virtues of the policy of active redeployment of labour he has a sufficient vocabulary to do so. In fact, the words he used—" a margin of unused manpower


and resources"—bear no direct relationship to the idea of an active redeployment policy. The rest of the House, outside the Government, know quite well to what Sir Leslie was referring.

Mr. John Biffen: Does not the hon. Member think it thoroughly unsatisfactory that the Joint Under-Secretary should totally decline to comment on the question whether the Government stand by Sir Leslie O'Brien's remarks?

Mr. Wainwright: I commented earlier on the lack of replies to the substantial questions raised by my right hon. Friend, and I stand by that. It is deplorable.
Throughout the summer nearly 60 per cent. of those registered as unemployed—taking no account of married women and others who silently disappear from industry—had been so unemployed for more than eight weeks, which is the maximum period that the ordinary published statistics reveal. This does not suggest massive redeployment. The facilities are not there, the arrangements were not made, the pre-planning was not done, for such redeployment.
It was as late as the second half of September this year that a representative of the Government was pleading with some branches of the unions—not with the national officers of the unions but with the branches—to admit adult trainees to craftmen's jobs if they had completed their training satisfactorily. This is at the root of the failure of the Government's training policy—a failure to get union branches to accept those who emerge trained from the centres or the industrial training schemes.
We have an example on redeployment today. The Times Business News tells us, as if it were in any way cause for astonishment or surprise, that the Cooperative Wholesale Society is shortly likely to dismiss from its distributive section about 3,000 employees. This is, as always in such cases, reason for distress, because of the disturbance involved. But the report goes on to indicate that this has caused something approaching panic and is yet another situation in which the Prime Minister is taking personal command.
In this uncertain world what could have been a safer bet, with a large dis-

tributive unit—particularly the Cooperative Wholesale Society, which engaged its own Dr. Beeching months ago—than that this winter it would start to lay off a large number of its employees engaged on the distributive side? Why the need, when this announcement is made, for the Prime Minister suddenly to regard it as a matter for panic action and improvisation? This is the kind of thing which could have been planned for weeks if not months in advance.
The tragedy is that this total lack of planning proceeds from a Government and Prime Minister who had persuaded large numbers of key people in industry—foremen, managers, researchers and the rest—that from this Government they could expect a plan. To their credit, many people, without swallowing the whole grandiosity of the National Plan, had equally disdained the foolish ribaldry with which it was greeted in some parts of this House. They had settled down to learn the language of planning and had put on their headphones to receive the planning signals from the Government. For the last four months those headphones have been silent, and this morning we have learned that there will be no signals at all this winter. This is not the way to treat key people in industry who have tried their honest best to co-operate with the Government.
I come now to the Government's own theme—the only faint indication of a plan that we have had from them during recent weeks, which is, to use their own term, restructuring. The Prime Minister applies this term to industry. The Liberal Party would like to ask whether this is not the moment—when conditions are a little cool and and when we are not preoccupied, unfortunately, with expansion—for some restructuring of Government.
From industry's point of view, since the advent of the two new Ministries—the Department of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Technology—the really creative, way-out, adventurous industrialists, before being able to launch any substantial new scheme, have had to negotiate a convoy of Government Departments, which, inevitably, moves only at the pace of the slowest. Is there not room here for sorting out the relative functions of the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs, the


Ministry of Technology and the various so-called sponsoring Ministries of the different industries, so that those who want to be creative and to take the lead in business expansion can at least deal primarily with one Department?
Correspondence, for instance, between business and the Board of Trade on different types of machinery in respect of investment grants is proving extremely frustrating to many go-ahead business men. Why the Board of Trade should have been delegated to handle this essentially technological subject is a question which entirely defeats one.
Then there is the use—or the present misuse—of that interesting apparatus, the Prices and Incomes Board. Why have the Government set up this admirable body under strong leadership and then sent it fishing only with a line instead of with a net, inquiring into the prices of odd articles here and there—some of them very odd indeed—and reporting on a transitory basis?
As we have made plain many times before, the Liberal Party would like to see the Board given the remit, at once, of a thorough and profound investigation of the whole subject of pay structure and negotiating procedure for wages in Britain's largest industries, so that, after this grim winter, there will be some prospect of a more satisfactory pattern of wage settlements nationally and locally. To go on employing this expert body on the basis of petty, ad hoc inquiries which can have only temporary value is a great misuse of Government resources.
Surely the Government could also be using this period to exert their own influence—which must still be there, even if only residual—with the unions on the same theme of rationalising the structure of pay negotiations. It is an old theme, but I was glad to see that, only last week, the general secretary of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers explicitly told a union audience that there were far too many unions and made his own suggestions for rationalising, reducing the number and improving negotiations.
We have heard little if anything from the Government about another version of the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation—which is engaged in trying to

rationalise the employers' side—to assist in rationalising the trade union field.
Then there is restructuring from the vital point of view, if there is to be reflation—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Does the hon. Member know that the Trades Union Congress is tackling this job of getting unions to unite and that we on this side strongly believe that it is not the job of the Government to instruct unions what to do? This was the policy of the Tory Conference and I notice that the hon. Member is joining the Tory Party in this sort of policy.

Mr. Wainwright: I was at pains to point out that we were asking not for Government intervention, but for the appointment of an independent body which could consider the whole matter. As for the hon. Member's reference to the T.U.C.'s interest in this matter, it expressed that so long ago, and has done so little since, that I had almost, but not quite, forgotten it.
If we are on the verge of some spendid revelation from Mr. Woodcock of a master plan I will be the first to applaud it—

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the hon. Member now arguing that he would advocate—we have had little advocacy of Liberal policy, and this is, after all, their morning—that they should legally enforce amalgamations and mergers between unions?

Mr. Wainwright: For the third time, I will repeat that we are proposing a body similar to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which operates in the industrial field, to speed up what the T.U.C. has, on its own admission, found so extremely difficult.
I was about to refer to restructuring in the interests of ensuring that reflation is, as far as possible, export led. We are rapidly reaching the position of having the smallest home market of all the great exporting Powers and are making very little change to adapt ourselves to the competition of countries or groups of countries with far larger home markets as a base for their export effort.
Nearly 18 months ago, at a luncheon given by the Press Gallery in this palace,


the Prime Minister made this remarkable offer:
What is needed is an export incentive that will make it more rewarding for manufacturers to invade export markets than to luxuriate in the ease of the home market. If there is an export incentive available which works and which is not illegal and we have not thought about it, the reward to its inventor might well go up to half this kingdom.
That remarkable offer—we do not know whether it was tax-free—has been available for a long time and I should have thought that we could have heard something from the Government by now along the lines for which the Prime Minister was obviously pleading 18 months ago.
Why, for instance, are those firms which are prepared to move to three-shift working, so as to make proper use of the capital equipment which the Board of Trade now so generously helps to pay for, not offered extra grants in respect of the transfer? Like many other representatives of wholly industrial constituencies, I am appalled at the lack of social amenities for those working on the awkward shifts. What Government encouragement are local authorities given to provide special amenities for those working in the strange hours?
The Clarke Report has recently shown that invisible exports are still making a large contribution to a satisfactory balance of trade. All kinds of difficulties have been produced for every solution, but to me there is nothing simpler than the entry which a foreign visitor is bound to make in a hotel register, to prove that that hotel has earned some foreign currency. There is ample scope over the whole field, not only of tourism but of all invisible export earning, for Government encouragement without infringing our international obligations.
Also relevant is the enormous field of Government patronage through their own procurement of the supplies which all Ministries require. I know that the Ministry of Defence has long taken into account the export saleability of items which it has been ordering for its own British use, but other Government Departments lag far behind in this respect. Think of our hospitals, our schools and our other great institutions. Still, very often, their own fads, their own highly insular and traditional requirements, get in the way of the British manufacturer who wants to lay

down plant for mass or batch production to offer the export market reasonably low costs.
Unfortunately, we have heard little, if anything, on these basic topics from the Government today. They have given the impression that they have hitched the economic caravan to their own car and then quietly parked the whole outfit without the slightest indication whether they will ever move it away.

Mr. Biffen: Mr. Biffen rose—

POST OFFICE (MISTAKES)

12.29 p.m.

Mr. John Taney: Having been drawn No. 43 in the Ballot for debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I count myself lucky today to be able to raise the question of the need to protect the public from the mistakes of the Post Office.
Many will have read the Daily Mail's recent headline slogan:
Fast or slow, it is the same by G.P.O
Proportionately, the Daily Mail, in its 28 tests, was luckier than I have been. Last Monday, my secretary sent me two envelopes addressed to Liverpool from London. I wanted them particularly before our party conference. My secretary paid 3s. 4d. on each of them for special delivery, but only one turned up by first post. I got no rebate and I had to telephone to London to find whether the two envelopes had been sent. This was confirmed. I telephoned the local sorting office. There was no sign of the second envelope. It did not come by second post.
Almost at that moment, I had a courteous telephone call from the Postmaster-General's private office to say that I had been lucky in the Ballot for this morning and asking what subject I intended to raise. I mentioned my annoyance that a special delivery was not special. I should add that the missing envelope turned up the following day at Brighton.
That experience of mine hardly bears out what is said on page 76 of the Post Office Guide, which states:
The packet is despatched from the office of posting by the next ordinary mail and is specially picked out from the rest of the mail both at the delivery office and at any intermediate office through which it may have to pass.


I have been fortunate enough to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Postmaster-General and I yield to no one in my admiration for the majority of the postmen, who bear heavy loads in all weathers. They are not fully mechanised and they bring our mail to our doors. I think that possibly in the future we may have to be content with gate delivery and we will have to pay extra for door delivery.
No country, however, can be efficient if its communications are poor. What is more important than anything else is the certainty of arrival. If only the Postmaster-General spent more time arresting the deterioration of the postal service and less time on the new issues of stamps, which remind me of the issues from Central American States in my youth, the whole economy of the country might well improve.
In the last four months, I have had considerable correspondence with the Postmaster-General concerning mistakes to the detriment of my constituents and various businesses on Merseyside. There was the case of the Liverpool Youth Music Committee, a registered charity, which sent 50 tickets by recorded delivery to an address in Muirhead Avenue East, Liverpool. Those tickets could have been sold for £9 and I am told that if it had been cash, the envelope would certainly have been registered. But how many people sending tickets through the post register them?
The Liverpool Youth Music Committee was put to great expense in having to substitute for the lost tickets, which intrinsically were of no value. The organisers received the following communication from the officer in charge of the returned letter branch, Victoria Street, Liverpool:
As indicated in the enclosed leaflet, articles with a market value of over £2 are inadmissible in the recorded delivery post. I am sorry, therefore, that we cannot meet the claim for compensation. I enclose stamps for 1s. 11d. to repay the postage and the fee which you paid for the advice of delivery.
The pamphlet, however, states that
This service is specially suitable for sending documents and papers of little or no monetary value.
It all depends what the Postmaster-General means by "little". A document can be of great value to one person and of virtually no value to others.
Therefore, I am not surprised to have received from the organiser of the Liverpool Youth Music Committee a letter which states:
The customer pays extra for a letter to be recorded on delivery, the letter has no value. If the G.P.O. fails in this duty to the public it cannot pay compensation because there is no value involved, but were the word 'penalty' substituted for 'compensation' and the penalty £2, then there would be some measure of justice in the service.
Another case is that of a business, in which I have a small interest, which on 14th April sent a document air mail to Australia. It was correctly stamped 1s. 9d. for the half ounce plus 9d. recorded delivery. It was accepted by the Exchange branch post office in Liverpool. Because there is no recorded delivery service in Australia, however, although the document was rightly stamped "air mail", the Post Office decided to send it by sea. It arrived on 6th June and the firm lost £86 8s. through the mistake of the Post Office. One got a courteous reply from the Postmaster-General, who said:
we hope that the action taken will prevent a similar occurrence.
A more expensive loss occurred later. On 6th June, documents were sent recorded delivery from Liverpool to Kettering, where they had to arrive by 3 o'clock on 8th June. They did not arrive until the 9th. That cost £350 or so. Again, one received a courteous reply from the Postmaster-General:
Despite extensive inquiries, we have been unable to find out what caused the long delay. I am sorry that the delay in these two cases should have resulted in financial loss to the senders, but we do not pay compensation for consequential loss.
I agree that in the last case Railex could have been used, but how many businesses know that for 20s. a packet not exceeding 1 1b. in weight can be sent between two railway stations? The Postmaster-General writes:
… it is important to maintain a sense of proportion about this. Railex traffic is only about 15,000 items a year".
It might be many more than that if more people knew about it. The Postmaster-General goes on to say that:
the best way of advertising it is through the Post Office Guide … we encourage business people to buy a personal copy by charging only 2s. 6d. … No post room should be without one.


It is hardly bedside reading.
Again, the Postmaster-General says:
The vast majority of Railex items would be delivered within 48 hours".
What about the residual minority? If there is a risk of being in the small percentage that is delayed more than 48 hours, that is a risk which many private enterprise companies cannot take. Therefore, individual private couriers stride the land. By law, they are allowed to carry only their own mail. What an economic waste this is.
The losses of that Liverpool firm are, however, minimal compared with those of a national civil engineering firm which posted a registered packet in New Ferry for a tender of over £100,000 in time, one would have thought, for delivery to the Runcorn Development Corporation by 12 noon on the following Monday but it was delivered late. It was only one of three tenders which, I am told, were delivered late.
I have a mass of other complaints. I understand the difficulties of the Post Office, which I do not believe could ever be completely cured. Therefore, why does not the Postmaster-General allow the public to insure against potential loss through delay?
On 20th July I wrote to the Postmaster-General saying:
I still cannot see why it is beyond the wit of the Post Office to undertake a profitable insurance scheme whereby those of the public who want to make certain of delivery within 48 hours can buy a special, say, half-a-crown stamp, and if delivery does not take place within the specified time, would then be able to claim up to, say, £100 per stamp, provided that the loss can be substantiated.
Back came the right hon. Gentleman's reply:
… compensation for delay, whatever the premium, cannot be limited in the way that compensation for loss can be. The market value for an item can readily be identified, but delay can involve the sender in some form of consequential loss. The most dramatic example that springs to mind is the would-be winner of £200,000 on the pools whose coupon did not arrive in time".
I again wrote stating:
The example of a loss of £200,000 on the pools would really not have been apposite to my scheme of insurance as the sender of the coupon would have to have insured himself before sending off the coupon and the rate of premium would have stopped

him doing so as, at the time of sending, the odds against winning such a sum would have been astronomical.
The Postmaster-General said in his letter:
I should like to make it perfectly clear that we would raise no obstacle if any private insurance firm wished to take on the job of providing such insurance against delay.
How can a private enterprise firm insure against inefficiency when it has no power to make the Post Office more efficient? Under Section 9(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, I am told that
… no proceedings in tort shall lie against the Crown for anything done or omitted to be done in relation to a postal packet by any person while employed as a servant or agent of the Crown …
When the Post Office becomes a public corporation will the public be able to sue that corporation if it fails to carry out what it has said it will do? If the answer is "No", why does not the Post Office copy the B.B.C. and B.E.A., both of which have given the public the benefit of allowing competition against those organisations? Why should not private enterprise offer a courier service in competition with the Post Office?

12.43 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on having the privilege of making two speeches just an hour or so after the House resumed following the Summer Recess. He referred to having held office as P.P.S. to a P.M.G. Both that post and his remarks today show that he knows something about the intricacies of the operations in the Post Office and of the complications that can arise.
Before dealing in detail with the points the hon. Gentleman raised, I will comment on the subject of Post Office efficiency and, in particular, the efficiency of the postal services. Hon. Members have been reminded more than once in the past of the size of the task which the postal service undertakes daily.
Every day we collect, sort, despatch and deliver 35 million letters and three quarters of a million parcels. The bulk of these letters are posted during the period of about two hours in the early evening and the vast majority are delivered between 7 o'clock and 9.30 the


following morning. We collect from well over 100,000 collecting points and provide a daily delivery service to almost every point, of which there are 17 million in the United Kingdom.
Our customers should never forget that to give this service many postmen have to work late in the evening, during the night and in the early hours of the morning. It is not altogether surprising, therefore, that we have staff shortages at certain key places. Nevertheless, we are now delivering more than 93 per cent of fully paid letters by the next weekday after posting. This, I am glad to say, is a significant improvement on last year, when the figure was 90 per cent. It must also be remembered that some letters to and from remoter places cannot, in any case, be delivered the next day.
Nevertheless, we are in no way complacent about the postal service. Much new thinking has been going on in the Post Office lately with a view to improving the standard of service we give our customers. This thinking has been especially directed towards giving a greater degree of consumer choice to those who use our services.
As my right hon. Friend announced earlier this month, we are proposing to reorganise the letter service on a new "two-tier" pattern in the autumn of 1968. The main purpose will be to allow the sender of any inland letter or packet, whatever its contents, to choose between two speeds of service and to pay postage according to his choice. This change will be the most fundament piece of postal reorganisation since Rowland Hill.
The proposal found favour with the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which conducted an exhaustive examination of the activities of the Post Office last year. It also has the support of the Post Office Users' Council. In two market surveys which the Post Office conducted we found that the majority of people were in favour of the change.
The hon. Gentleman has on a number of occasions complained of delays in the post and has asked why we do not introduce some form of insurance against delay—a form of guaranteed delivery. What I believe the hon. Gentleman had in mind was that the Post Office should, on payment of, say, an extra 2s. 6d.,

guarantee delivery during a specified period and undertake to pay compensation if a letter was not delivered within that time. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether, if the Post Office was not prepared to do this, private enterprise could be allowed to do it.
My right hon. Friend has already written to the hon. Gentleman to explain why we cannot do exacly what he suggests. The hon. Gentleman quoted from that letter. There are three basic reasons. First, the system would be nothing like as simple as he suggested. He represents a Liverpool constituency and might wish to post mail for delivery in all parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly, it is more reasonable to expect delivery on the following day of mail for Manchester than mail for, say, the North of Scotland.
On the other hand, for someone living in Inverness, which I recently visited, the situation would be different. We would, therefore, have to provide a different grade and scale of service, perhaps with different rates of premium and compensation, for nearly every town in the country. This would be almost impossible to administer.

Mr. Tilney: Would not that difficulty be overcome if 48 hours, or even longer, was the limit from the point of view of insurance cover?

Mr. Slater: I do not know. Since the hon. Gentleman raised this matter we have gone into the subject most thoroughly. I assure him that we have not brushed it aside. He suggested that something of this type should be introduced. I assure him that every consideration has been given to the suggestion.
Secondly, we cannot provide the same safeguards against delay to the mail as we can against loss. When someone posts a registered letter he is, in effect, accepting the Post Office's guarantee that that letter will be given special treatment; and if it is lost we will pay compensation. But delay is a different matter.
I have no wish to dodge the Post Offices's responsibility for everything that happens to the mail in transit, but it is a fact that some cases of delay, such as sudden unexpected surges of traffic or transport difficulties, are impossible for


us to predict and are beyond our control.
There is a third reason. It is one thing to pay compensation for a lost article, but delay is a different matter. Delay could involve the sender in some form of consequential loss, so that either the premium would have to be absurdly high to cover all the possible consequences or the various forms of consequential loss which were admissible would have to be drawn so narrowly as to defeat the whole purpose of the scheme. These are our reasons for not introducing any form of guarantee against delay, but I repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member that we would raise no obstacle if any private insurance firm wished to provide such insurance.
The problem of special delivery has also been mentioned. I did not quite get all the details of the letters which the hon. Member said were posted by his secretary, but if he will let me have full details I will gladly investigate this. I would, however, point out that merely because a letter which is posted by special delivery arrives with the morning mail this does not mean that the Post Office has failed. These letters, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, travel with the ordinary mail, and it is only at the delivery office that they are picked out. If they arrive as the postmen are preparing for the morning delivery they go out with the postmen on the morning delivery and, when this happens, the recipient has only to apply to the head postmaster and we will refund the special delivery fee. This seems to me to be very fair indeed.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed interest in the Railex service which we provide with the help of British Rail and it might be helpful if I described briefly what that service is. Essentially, it boils down to this: the Post Office will accept over the counter a letter from a member of the public, take it by special messenger to the nearest railway station, arrange for it to be put on the appropriate train, collect it at the station nearest to its destination and deliver it by special messenger to the addressee. That, in essence, is what it involves. For this we charge a fee of £1 per packet. If this sounds a lot to pay for one packet, I would ask

hon. Members to bear in mind the very special and, indeed, V.I.P. treatment which such packets get.
There are a few perhaps obvious points that I should also make about this service. In the first place, there must be a railway station. There would be little point in the hon. Gentleman walking into a post office in rural Wales and asking to send a Railex letter to the north of Scotland and expecting the Post Office to deliver this the same day. We are not magicians in the Post Office—we are charged with lots of things, but not as yet with that.
It will also be obvious that the greater the number of times the packet has to change trains, especially if transfers between termini in a place like London are involved, the longer the letter will take. It is where there is a direct rail route or a through train between points that the Railex would offer most advantage; for instance, between, shall we say, Liverpool and London, where it was essential that the letter should be delivered the same day.
The other obvious comment I should make is that there is no point in spending £1 for something when one can get the same service for 4d. The vast majority of people are content to pay their 4d. and have their letters delivered by the Post Office in the normal way—and, as I have said, we deliver over 93 per cent. of such letters by the day following collection.
The hon. Member has suggested that the great majority of businessmen are unaware of the existence of the Railex service; that if it were better known much greater use would be made of it than is made now, and that the Post Office should, therefore, publicise it a lot more than we now do. I think, however, that he may be getting this matter a little out of proportion. As I said, this is a very special sort of service: letters get V.I.P. treatment, they are very important packets, and it is therefore a service for which one pays accordingly. It meets a highly specialised need—for instance, where it is important to get a document from one city to another on the same day, and where the cost is, relatively speaking, unimportant.
As a point of interest, we checked on the number of items posted at the post


office in Liverpool nearest to the hon. Member's business address. We found that three items had been dispatched by Railex from this office during the last three months—all for addresses in the London area. In fact, the number posted all over the country amounts to no more than 15,000 a year, compared with 11,000 million a year by the ordinary post—

Mr. Tilney: But that bears out my point that many businesses are relying on special couriers because they do not know of the Railex service.

Mr. Slater: Well, I have given the hon. Member that information.
The point I make is that we do publicise this service in what we regard as the most sensible and economic medium of publicity for such a service, namely, the Post Office Guide. I say, "sensible", because I take it for granted that most business firms that use the postal services a lot will get hold of a copy of the Post Office Guide. There is a copy available for reference at every post office, and it can be bought for a mere 2s. 6d.—which is far less than the cost of production. It contains all the information about Railex and every other service which any business firm needs to know. If hon. Members with businesses to run were to make sure that their post rooms had a copy of the Post Office Guide, I am sure that there would be less reason for them to write to me or to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the position when the Post Office becomes a public corporation. As the House knows, the Government have announced that they will be bringing forward legislation to convert the Post Office from a Department of State to a public corporation. I do not think that it would he appropriate for me to say anything more about that aspect this morning. The hon. Member will have to await the Bill, and the deliberations upon it.
As to monopoly, the hon. Member suggested that private enterprise ought to

be allowed to provide some service in competition with us. It is fairly clear that private enterprise would concentrate on those services which are profitable, and would disregard those services—to outlying areas, for instance—which the Post Office now provides as part of its social obligations to the community. I may say that I have seen how our people have to work there, and what they have to encounter during the course of postal deliveries. Moreover, the Post Office, with its 23,000 offices and over 100,000 collecting points—not to mention its expertise in the carriage of mails—is properly equipped to provide this service to the community. I think that would be a wasteful use of national resources if this vast infrastructure were to be duplicated on the lines indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Tilney: I did not really suggest that, if I may just intervene before the Assistant Postmaster-General sits down. What I suggested was that private enterprise might be allowed to compete on the special services—special delivery, Railex and things of that kind—whereas, at present, the ordinary private company has to take only its own mail and not mail from the company next door.

Mr. Slater: I know that the hon. Gentleman has given careful study to this matter because of his great interest in Post Office operations, but I do not think that even if that were to happen it would ever achieve what he would like to achieve. The Post Office, with all the progress that has taken place within the postal service by the new methods that have been introduced, is giving the general public and the business interests a level of service which in my opinion private enterprise operating hived-off parts of the service could not give. It would not come up to the standards now maintained by the Post Office.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Cost

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Social Security what percentage of the gross national product is spent on social security.

The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): In the financial year 1966–67 about 8·1 per cent. of the United Kingdom gross national product was spent on the social security schemes for which I am responsible.

Mr. Digby: Can the right hon. Lady say how this compares with three years ago and with the Common Market average?

Mrs. Hart: Is is very difficult to make comparison with the Common Market countries because some of them include items for medical care and medical attention which are not included in our figures. Perhaps the most useful answer I can give the hon. Member is that the figures show a rise from 7·2 per cent. in 1964 to 8·1 per cent. now, an increase of 12½ per cent. in two and three-quarter years, and a rise from 1961 to 1964 of only 7½ per cent.

Widows (Employment)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she has now decided when to embark upon her study of the employment opportunities available to widows.

Mrs. Hart: I am still considering proposals for such an investigation.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend consider expediting this matter in view of the undoubted difficulties which many widows face? Will she consider especially extra assistance for the young widow who might have to seek employment later in life and might require assistance on the lines of the Remploy scheme?

Mrs. Hart: I am well aware of the problem of young widows. I should like to consider these proposals and the best way of tackling the problem.

Family Poverty

7. Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security what are the latest estimates that she now has of the number of children in Great Britain who will be living below the supplementary benefit subsistence level this winter.

Mrs. Hart: I am afraid that no more recent estimates are possible than those in the Ministry's "Family Circumstances" survey report published in the summer.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, although social security spending may be up 50 per cent. since 1964, really poor families have benefited comparatively little and there is great need for further action to prevent having a permanent pool of children in poverty of anything between half a million and a million?

Mrs. Hart: I am intensely aware of the problem. The present family allowances proposals will help a great deal. We have to recognise that as we put up the rate of supplementary benefit we get a rise in relative poverty which may not be a rise in absolute poverty, but I am well aware of the problem. I am looking hard at ways in which we might meet it.

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has to help those 250,000 children who, even after the new increases in family allowances, will still remain in families whose total income is below the supplementary benefit level.

Mrs. Hart: The problem of family poverty arises from a complex of causes and there is no simple or single solution to it. Our immediate plans were announced in July. They will bring substantial help to these families. I have no further statement to make at present.

Lord Balniel: What consideration has the right hon. Lady given to the proposal which we made last year that there should be a special supplementary children's allowance, perhaps on a sliding scale, to


those families which are below the supplementary benefit level? What has been the outcome of her study of this proposal?

Mrs. Hart: I am not quite clear whether what the noble Lord really has in mind is that there should be a permanent State subsidy to low-wage earners. If he has that in mind, I would not agree with him that this is the solution. My own outlook towards this is that it is best to break the problem down as far as we can into its component elements and see how we can best deal with each one of those component elements.

Wage Stop

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Social Security how many families had their incomes reduced by the wage stop last winter, and by what average weekly amount; how many families she estimates will be affected this winter; and if, in view of the higher unemployment figures and other factors, she will suspend the wage stop this autumn.

Mrs. Hart: This Question falls into four parts and I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of my reply.
The peak figure last winter was 27,000. It is not known by what average amount the normal supplementary benefit entitlement was reduced, nor just how many families will be affected this winter, although the present figure is 26,000. The wage-stop rule reflects the problem of low earnings. It is these which account for seven-eighths of family poverty. The Supplementary Benefits Commission and I are at present examining possible ways of softening the impact of the wage stop.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Minister for that long Answer. Does she accept the expert opinion of the Child Poverty Action Group that the number of children affected this winter may reach 200,000? Secondly, since the wage stop is aimed at malingering, should she not exclude the sick and disabled who cannot be accused of malingering?

Mrs. Hart: The figure quoted by my hon. Friend does not, I think—and I do not think the Child Poverty Action Group does—take into account the fact that seven-eighths of those concerned in the

survey are included because of the low earnings of men in work and one-eighth is due to the wage stop. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am looking deeply into the question of trying to break up the causation of family poverty into component parts. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of disability, but there are difficulties about definitions. I take his point.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security (1) what would be the total cost of giving pensioners receiving supplementary benefits the same increase in the total of pension plus supplementary benefit as was given to other pensioners from the end of October, 1967; and (2) if she will take steps to increase, as from the end of October, 1967, the total of pension plus supplementary benefit by 10s., instead of 5s., for a single person, and by 16s., instead of 8s., for a married couple.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): The extra cost of putting the supplementary benefit rates up by the same amount as National Insurance rates from the end of this month would be about £40 million a year including some £25 million for retirement pensioners receiving supplementary pensions. My hon. Friend's suggestion cannot be accepted because the main income levels for supplementary pensioners were increased last November, when retirement pensions did not go up. The alternative would have been to deprive the most needy old people of the help they have had in the last year.

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, irrespective of the very great help given last autumn, 1,650,000 recipients of supplementary old-age pensions are still in the sector of those in greatest need and to save a few million pounds on Polaris submarines at their expense may be in line with what we expect from a Tory Government, but is never in line with what we expect from a Labour Government?

Mr. Pentland: I have no responsibility for Polaris submarines, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the total increases in supplementary pensions rates since this


Government took office represent improvements of more than 35 per cent. on the rates previously in force.

Mr. William Price: Accepting that argument, would the Minister not agree that a great many old people will get only half of what they were led to expect? In future when we increase pensions could we not make absolutely clear what they will get and not suggest that it is twice as much?

Mr. Pentland: As I have said, there was an intermediate increase in November, 1966, when we granted an increase in supplementary pensions. That and the forthcoming increase have to be taken together. It has to be recognised that retirement pensions have not been increased since March, 1965.

Tenants (Rents)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will ask tenants paying grossly unfair rents, which in turn are being paid by her Department, to seek the advice of their rent officers.

Mr. Pentland: It is the practice for claimants for supplementary benefits whose rents are considered unreasonable to be advised to approach the rent officer.

Mr. Allaun: Is it true that in some cases the Ministry refuses to pay the full rent of the tenant?

Mr. Pentland: Yes Sir, but only where it is unreasonable, because under the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Act, the Commission is required to meet only rents which are "reasonable in the circumstances". When statistics were last obtained 1·1 per cent. of rents paid by claimants were not being met in full.

Mr. Lubbock: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there may be a very big difference between what is considered unreasonable by his Department and a fair rent as determined by the Rent Act, 1965? Would he not, therefore, give instructions that in any case where his officers consider the rent is not fair under the terms of the Act reference should be made to the rent officer?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, that is always done. This point is always considered. If any hon. Member has any evidence that there is unreasonable application of these pro-

visions in any case and sends it to the Department, we shall be glad to look into it.

Dame Irene Ward: Would it not be easier if the Ministry could find ways of dealing with this problem rather than asking the recipient of the rent to go to the rent tribunal and subsequently finding that the tenant gets notice to quit? Is it not a fact that this happens and that I have sent evidence to him?

Mr. Pentland: I have no such evidence—

Dame Irene Ward: I have sent it.

Mr. Pentland: I give the same reply to the hon. Lady as I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). If hon. Members have any particular cases which they are not satisfied are being dealt with in accordance with the Act, they should send particulars to the Department and we shall look into them.

Review

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will ensure that all interested parties and professional bodies who wish to do so may give evidence to the Government for the purposes of their review of social security.

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Social Security when the Government's comprehensive review of the social security scheme will be published.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the progress made in abolishing the graduated pension scheme introduced before October, 1964, and its replacement by a new scheme of graduated contributions and graduated benefits.

Mrs. Hart: The review has already resulted in a number of important reforms and improvements. Others, including a new earnings-related pensions scheme, will be brought forward as they are ready.
As has been made clear previously, the Government are always glad to study evidence submitted on matters covered by the review.

Lord Balniel: Why did the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who was at one time in charge of the


social security review, express his own personal very strong regret that an outside body had not been appointed to which outside organisations could give evidence?

Mrs. Hart: I do not think that it is for me to examine the precise thoughts of my right hon. Friend. I can only say that I am in normal and regular contact with a number of the organisations and bodies which are naturally extremely interested in what our thoughts are going to be. They convey their thoughts to us. When we have a broad framework worked out, they will be invited to comment. Equally, we are glad to receive any views from any of them now.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend now give an assurance that, long before the next election, there will be legislation to get rid of what we in the Labour Party have described as a Tory swindle—the graduated contribution pension scheme?

Mrs. Hart: I assure my hon. Friend that we have every intention of getting the necessary legislation through within the present Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Day Nurseries

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the shortage of day nursery places for the children of working mothers, he will seek to give financial assistance to industrial and other concerns who are willing to establish day nurseries attached to their place of work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): This would require legislation which is not at present contemplated.

Miss Lestor: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, unless a careful watch is kept on this provision and financial assistance given, where necessary, this type of service is likely to prove to be as inadequate as much of the private day-minding service has been?

Mr. Snow: Local health authorities can make grants only to voluntary bodies and only where the day nursery in ques-

tion is mainly for children who need places on health and welfare grounds. The future provision of nursery facilities for pre-school children will depend on decisions to be taken on the Plowden Report.

Pharmaceutical Industry (Sainsbury Committee's Report)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take as a result of the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to publish a White Paper on the Sainsbury Report; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee concerning the drug industry.

Sir E. Bullus: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to publish the report of the Sainsbury Committee set up to inquire into the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The Report was published on 29th September as a Command Paper. It provides a valuable appraisal of the difficult and often controversial issues which affect the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the National Health Service, and the Government are greatly indebted to Lord Sainsbury and his colleagues for their valuable, thorough and far-reaching study.
The Report requires, and is receiving, close study by the Government and the industry, and it would be premature at this stage to reach conclusions on the Committee's recommendations.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is both a timely and a moderate Report? Will he give particular consideration to the suggestions for changing the pricing machinery for drugs, for revision of the Patents Act as it affects new drugs, and for the setting up of a medicines commission?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. All these matters will be very carefully considered by my Department and by the industry and other interested parties.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the very commonsense approach to this whole question by the Sainsbury Committee, will my right hon. Friend ensure, first, that the proposed legislation on medicines goes beyond just the medicines commission and includes all other necessary legislation and, secondly, that there is an amendment to the National Health Service Act which will permit family doctors to prescribe drugs as part of the services of the Crown?

Mr. Robinson: No doubt these matters will be considered. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I can tell the House that the Sainsbury Committee's recommendations on the control of medicines are being studied in relation to the proposals in the recent White Paper on forthcoming legislation on medicines. We are urgently seeking the views of the interests chiefly involved on the implications of these recommendations. Broadly, we think that they are in line with the concept of the White Paper.

Dr. Summerskill: As a result of the revelations in the Report, would my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that in future a far greater proportion of the profits of the drug industry are put into research, particularly among the British-owned companies?

Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend no doubt has read, the Committee had a good deal to say about research. On the question of profits, it is true that the Committee referred to
Excessive prices to the extent of several millions of £s over
a three-year period. That phrase must be related to a total expenditure over that period of between £300 million and £400 million.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the Minister give an undertaking that, whatever conclusions he may eventually arrive at in the light of this Report, he will do his best to ensure that adequate finance still remains available to ensure adequate research and development on new preparations?

Mr. Robinson: Yes; I do not think there is any doubt that this will be the case.

Dr. Winstanley: In the course of his consideration of this very important Report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost of drugs per head of population in this country is still substantially lower than that in most comparable countries and that waste, although it arises from a competitive, commercial drug industry, also arises substantially from the prescribing habits of doctors and from facts which are innate within the National Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. I think that both these points were taken and commented upon by the Sainsbury Committee.

Cigarette Smoking (Gift Schemes and Advertising)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health what further action he intends to take to reduce cigarette smoking in the community.

Mr. K. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for the length of the reply.
As I told the House before the Recess, I met representatives of the tobacco industry in July and asked them to make a further effort to reach agreement between themselves on the voluntary limitation of advertising and cigarette sales promotion. I made it clear to the manufacturers that such an agreement must, in my view, include the ending of coupon schemes.
I met the manufacturers again last month, when they told me that they had failed to reach agreement. Two of the firms would agree to the ending of coupon schemes and to the limitation of mass media advertising expenditure on a basis agreed between them. The third firm would not agree to the ending of coupon schemes, though it would have been prepared to control its development and to limit advertising.
After more than a year of negotiations, it is now clear that no further progress is possible by voluntary agreement. As hon. Members know, cigarette smoking is a serious danger to health and a major cause of preventable deaths. In view of this, the Government have decided to introduce legislation in due course to take powers to ban coupon gift schemes in relation to cigarettes, to control or


ban other promotional schemes, to forbid or limit certain forms of cigarette advertising, and to limit expenditure on advertising of cigarettes.

Mr. Speaker: I would hope that a long Answer like this might be taken at the end of Question Time.

Dr. Dunwoody: Can I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement this afternoon will be widely welcomed by everyone in this country—by the medical profession more than by any other group, but also by everyone who wants to see a reduction in the terrible toll of cigarette-induced diseases in this country?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Winstanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer methods of applying a differential duty as between cigarettes and pipes and cigars, to encourage people at least to give up cigarette smoking and to take up in preference cigar and pipe smoking?

Mr. Robinson: This is a budgetary matter, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will read the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Health what action he has taken in the light of the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967.

Mr. K. Robinson: I wrote to all local authorities in July urging them to review their family planning facilities and to make the widest possible use of their extended powers under the new Act. I have also called for reports by 31st March, 1968, on action taken or proposed.

Mr. Brooks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the prompt action he has taken and welcome, in particular, the stress upon the domiciliary service. Would he care to comment upon the fears which have been expressed recently about possible legal difficulties arising from giving help to the young unmarried?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to some specu-

lation about the possibility of giving help to girls under 16. In that case, I am assured that it would be only in the most exceptional circumstances that a doctor would be prepared to see a girl under 16 at a family planning clinic, even with parental consent. Perhaps it would not be wise to exclude these girls completely from receiving advice. I am told that there would be no legal difficulties of the kind which have been envisaged.

Drugs

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Health if he will now publish in a cheap and popular form of booklet the medical consequence of taking soft and hard drugs when not prescribed under medical supervision.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Health what conclusions he has come to as a result of his consultations with the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence about the need for a health education and publicity compaign about the dangers of taking drugs.

Mr. K. Robinson: The question of publicity about the dangers of drug taking will be considered as soon as I have received the advice of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.

Mr. Cordle: In view of the urgency of the situation, could the Minister publish a popular pamphlet, which would be readable by all ages, pointing out the grave effects which can result from taking these harmful drugs?

Mr. Robinson: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wishes, but I can assure him that hasty or ill-conceived publicity might well do more harm than good. The Government would prefer to await the considered views of the Advisory Committee before deciding on particular measures such as the booklet which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is, nevertheless, mounting demand from the public for more information of the sort which could enable people to spell out to young people the dangers of taking soft as well as hard drugs? Even though medical opinion may be divided on some aspects, would not a publicity campaign be able


to accommodate those differences and still be very useful?

Mr. Robinson: I agree that there is need for more information. I want only to make sure that it is the right information and the right advice.

Lord Balniel: As important as publicity is the setting up of out-patients clinics for the treatment of drug addicts. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether progress is being made in that respect?

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that that issue arises out of this Question, but I can assure the noble Lord that progress is being made.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members appreciate his attitude of not publicising circumstances when the circumstances are unknown? Should not much more research be done before the Minister publicises such matters?

Mr. Robinson: More research is needed and more research is currently being carried on.

Sir S. McAdden: While the Minister is taking steps to control the advertising of another drug, will he take equally strong steps to prevent the publicising of the argument in favour of legalised "pot"?

Mr. Robinson: No doubt that is one of the matters which the Advisory Committee will take into account.

Handicapped Persons (Vehicles)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Health if he will now make a further statement on progress made in providing vehicles for those handicapped people needing them.

Mr. Snow: Over 2,600 vehicles have been provided for disabled people since 1st January. This includes 700 motor cars and 104 of these are the result of the improvements my right hon. Friend announced in February.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the progress which has been made, but does not my hon. Friend accept that there is still much personal hardship among disabled people who require such

vehicles but who even now cannot get them?

Mr. Snow: I agree, but in point of fact my right hon. Friend has said that he will be introducing legislation on this subject in the forthcoming session.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is anything being done about the difficulty that many of these people have of getting their chair into the boot of the car which is provided?

Mr. Snow: Research into the design of the vehicles and chairs is being carried on.

Disabled Persons

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet decided upon an inquiry into the numbers of permanently disabled persons, following studies by Bedford College, London, with a view to compiling a register of such persons in England and Wales.

Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir. The Government Social Survey will undertake next year a study of adults living at home who are substantially and permanently handicapped by limitations in their movements. The survey will show the extent to which they receive and need help from local authority services and will assist in the development of those services. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security is also keenly interested in this field, and I shall be discussing with her how far the survey can yield information of particular value to her.

Mr. Campbell: Has the Minister yet decided himself whether a register of the kind described in my Question is necessary, because the disabled who have never been able to work have never appeared in the National Insurance system?

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure whether in part that is not a question for my right hon. Friend, but the survey will enable disabled people to be identified with much more precision than at the moment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are many permanently disabled persons who are not within the scope of Bedford College?


Therefore, to make his list complete, will he enlist the assistance of the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to include disabled persons in Scotland?

Mr. Robinson: I shall be discussing with my right hon. Friend the possibility of extending this survey to Scotland.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Health if he will seek to require local authorities to provide a breakdown of the disabled register, as has been done by the London Borough of Lambeth, of which he has a copy.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that this would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Morris: Is that the only comment which my hon. Friend can make about the important survey in Lambeth? Is not stronger advice from the Ministry needed?

Mr. Snow: So important does my right hon. Friend consider this matter to be that on his authority I interviewed an officer from Lambeth some months ago, but the discussion disclosed that the Lambeth exercise was not sufficiently objective. We are looking into other forms of securing the necessary information, but it is not likely to be a short-term exercise.

Young Chronic Sick

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Health if he will survey a densely populated urban area and a sparsely populated rural area of roughly equal population to establish the numbers and classification of the young chronic sick between the ages of 16 to 60 institutionalised under the care of the regional hospital boards, local authorities and, where possible without compulsion in any form, outside the National Health Service; including those from the selected areas who are institutionalised outside its boundaries.

Mr. Snow: A survey of younger chronic sick patients in hospital in all areas of England and Wales is in progress. 4,532 physically handicapped people below the age of 65 were in residential homes under local authority arrangements on 31st December, 1966.

Mr. Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing public concern about the welfare of and facilities available to the young chronic sick? Would not a survey of the kind suggested encourage the hope of much more action from the Ministry and far better statistics available to it?

Mr. Snow: There are later Questions on this matter. My right hon. Friend will keep in mind the possibility of a survey of the young chronic sick in local authority homes. The whole issue is very complicated and takes into account various forms of multiple disablement.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive from the National Board for Prices and Incomes the report on the pay of nurses; and whether an increase will be back-dated to the date on which the last claim was submitted.

Mr. K. Robinson: Not before the end of the year. It will be for the Board to make recommendations on the operative date of any increase it may propose.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the nurses come within one of the criteria of the prices and incomes policy for a substantial increase, namely, that they are among the lower-paid sections of the community? Since the claim was originally put in in February, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be back-dating and that there will not be a proportionate increase in the cost of accommodation for nurses when they get the increase which they have long deserved?

Mr. Robinson: I note my right hon. Friend's views, but I think that he will recognise that these are matters for the Board while it is considering the claim.

Drugs (Quality)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Health (1) what action he is prepared to take to check the quality of drugs marketed by small pharmaceutical companies obtaining their supplies from abroad;
(2) if, where a prescribable drug is found to contain material which is not


an active ingredient of the drug which has been officially approved, he will take action to safeguard the interests of National Health Service patients.

Mr. Snow: It is the responsibility of local authorities to enforce the prohibition in the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, of the retail sale of a drug that is inaccurately labelled or is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.
In addition, executive councils arrange for selected National Health Service prescriptions awaiting collection to be taken for analysis, and where a fault is found the matter is referred to the Pharmaceutical Service Committee for investigation whether there has been a breach of the chemist's terms of service.
The Government recently announced in Command Paper 3395 their intention of introducing early legislation to provide further safeguards in respect of the quality of medicines generally, whether imported or not.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that a Dublin firm, I.C.P., is now marketing in this country a product under the label Ampicillin which does not contain ampicillin but penicillin "v" and that if this drug were given to a patient for whom ampicillin had been prescribed, the result could be fatal? Is it not extremely urgent to take action against such commercial outlaws who are endangering the health of patients in this way?

Mr. Snow: We are aware of the case which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Our information is not quite so dramatic. My right hon. Friend has written to the firm concerned in view of the possible hazards involved to ask what steps have been taken to withdraw the batch in question from circulation. He is awaiting a reply.

North Regional Airport (Disabled Travellers)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he will investigate the facilities available for disabled travellers at the North Regional Airport, with a view to ensuring adequate facilities and aid.

Mr. Snow: I will gladly consider any information that the hon. Lady may wish to send me.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information has already been made public in the north of England? Is it not rather peculiar that it has not yet reached the Ministry? May I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether the facilities at airports all over the Kingdom for the disabled are as he would like them to be? Will he let me have a report on all the airports?

Mr. Snow: In a matter of this kind one should never be entirely satisfied. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has given general guidance on the design of new Government buildings used by disabled people, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has circulated this information for the use of local authorities, asking them to pass on the information to private developers. In connection with the particular airport with which the hon. Lady is immediately concerned, the consortium of local authorities concerned will have this circular in mind and will take the necessary remedial steps.

Dame Irene Ward: The airport has been opened.

Pre-School Children

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Health if he will initiate an interdepartmental inquiry into the needs and facilities for the pre-school child.

Mr. Snow: We are not satisfied that a further inquiry would be helpful in reaching conclusions.

Miss Lestor: Is my hon. Friend not aware that recent published surveys, particularly the one headed by Dr. Simon Yudkin, show the inadequacies and often the horrifying circumstances surrounding provision for the under-fives? Is he not aware that this reply will be very disappointing to many people engaged in child care?

Mr. Snow: I do not think that my hon. Friend should take such a gloomy view. It is not a shortage of reports on this and allied matters that is of concern to us. A new Government social survey, which it is hoped will be published in the spring, on the requirements of working mothers and the need for child care facilities, will be urgently considered by my


Department. The fact is that we have a certain amount of information, but we are still awaiting certain decisions in connection with the Plowden Report.

"TORREY CANYON" (LEGAL ACTION)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Attorney-General what progress has been made in the various actions instituted by Her Majesty's Government to recover damages caused by the stranding of the "Torrey Canyon".

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As we succeeded in obtaining a bond for £3 million in respect of the action which we are bringing in Singapore against the Barracuda Tanker Corporation, we are proceeding with that action and our statement of claim has been delivered. In these circumstances, no further step has been taken in the actions commenced by us in this country and in Bermuda. The Barracuda Tanker Corporation and the Union Oil Company have brought proceedings in New York to limit their liability to 50 dollars, and we shall be contesting those proceedings.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, quite apart from our chances of establishing liability for the damage, whether he thinks we will succeed in preventing the companies from limiting their liability?

The Attorney-General: We shall do our utmost to prevent them limiting their liability.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Attorney-General say, pending the decision in those particular actions, what steps he is taking to compensate the people of the seaside resorts which were affected by the oil?

The Attorney-General: It is a little premature to speak of compensation until we have won the action.

ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE (USHERS)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Attorney-General what settlement has been reached concerning the pay claim for an increase of 17 per cent. by ushers in London's Royal Courts of Justice; if he will list

the terms of the settlement; and how they are related to the considerations of lower-paid workers and increased productivity as indicated by the Government's prices and incomes policy.

The Attorney-General: A new national scale, rising from £13 7s. 0d. to £14 7s. 6d. a week, has been introduced with effect from 1st July, 1966. This is in accord with the criteria for wage increases set out in the White Papers on prices and incomes policy. The increases are related to the pay of messengers and paper-keepers, for whom revised scales were determined recently by recognised pay research procedures. In accordance with the prices and incomes policy, the increases are being paid in two instalments, the first at the end of July and the second on 1st January, 1968.

Mr. Biffen: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what percentage the increases represent?

The Attorney-General: In percentage terms, the increases range from approximately 9·2 per cent. at the bottom end of the scale, to 10·2 per cent. at the top.

ALGERIA (BRITISH AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Attorney-General what success he has had in obtaining the extradition to the United Kingdom of persons concerned in the piracy of the British aircraft in which Mr. Tshombe and others were passengers.

The Attorney-General: The person alleged to be responsible for the hi-jacking is in Algeria, and there is no extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Algeria.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Nevertheless, do Her Majesty's Government realise that their obligation does not end with the belated though welcome release of the two pilots? Have not the pilots and the passengers been subjected to treatment contrary to the European Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What are the Government doing to see that justice is done in this outrage?

The Attorney-General: The matter of claiming damages is one for those affected. It is for them to pursue their


legal claims. Her Majesty's Government have done their utmost in this situation to protect both the liberty and the property of British subjects.

Mr. Paget: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what is the position of successor States under extradition law? To what extent do they have the liabilities and responsibilities of the principal State of which they formed a part?

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that as independent sovereign States it falls to them to make their own separate and fresh extradition treaties, but I would like notice of the Question.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not clear that at the very least a serious criminal offence was perpetrated in this British aircraft over the high seas? Is the Attorney-General satisfied that all the channels open to him have been fully explored in assisting those people, British subjects or not, who were passengers in a British aircraft, in pursuing their remedy?

The Attorney-General: I quite agree that a serious criminal offence was committed. If those responsible came within the jurisdiction I have little doubt that appropriate steps would be taken against them, but unhappily they are not within the jurisdiction.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While everyone will be gratified to have the British aircrew back in this country, will the Attorney-General say what steps he is taking to get the aircraft returned? It is nearly five months and we have heard nothing about it at all.

The Attorney-General: The difficulty there is that it is a matter for the owners to pursue their legal claims for its recovery, although naturally Her Majesty's Government have made representations. The problem again in regard to enforcement is that Algeria has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. As the hon. Gentleman says, in law there are no powers.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS (SOLICITORS)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General whether he will give an assurance that, in future, suitably highly quali-

fled solicitors will be eligible and considered for appointment to the Bench.

The Attorney-General: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor already considers solicitors for appointments for which they have the necessary statutory qualifications, but I can give no undertaking that legislation will be introduced to make solicitors eligible for all judicial appointments.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that legal quality, irrespective of demarcation, is the sole criterion? Could he tell us how many qualified solicitors have been appointed to the Bench recently?

The Attorney-General: When my hon. Friend refers to the Bench I do not know what kind he is referring to. One solicitor was appointed to the Metropolitan Bench earlier this year, and solicitors are qualified to become chairmen or deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions. I agree that the test is quality and ability, and at the moment the Bar has an abundance of both.

Mr. George Jeger: Would my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that no solicitor will be appointed to a Bench in the area in which his firm practises?

The Attorney-General: I am not sure about that. I would rather like notice of that question.

RACE RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Winnick: asked the Attorney-General what prosecutions have taken place recently for offences under the Race Relations Act.

The Attorney-General: During the last 12 months, prosecutions under the Race Relations Act have been commenced against 15 defendants. Eleven of these are at present awaiting trial.

Mr. Winnick: Is action to continue against all those who stir up hatred against people because of the colour of their skin, black or white? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what view he takes of the speech made by a Conservative Member just before the Recess, which, of course, was a form of incitement to race hatred—the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is going wide of the original Question.

The Attorney-General: Action will be taken if there is evidence of a criminal offence under the Race Relations Act, whoever commits the offence and whatever his colour, status or description.

Sir C. Osborne: What specific action has been taken against the American coloured man who came to this country and advised the black people in this country to shoot white people merely because they were white? None whatever.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is not this one of the sub judice cases?

The Attorney-General: That case, if it is the case which I have in mind, is sub judice. A warrant has been issued for the arrest of the man in question.

BLACK POWER RALLY, LONDON

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

41. Sir J. HOBSON: To ask the Attorney-General, whether he will call for a report from the police about the speeches made at the Black Power rally at the Mahatma Gandhi Hall in Fitzroy Square, London, on 6th October 1967, with a view to considering a criminal prosecution; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: By agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), I am not calling Question No. 41 as the matter has become sub judice over the weekend.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS (PENOLOGICAL TRAINING)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to arrange a course of basic penological training for those appointed to higher judicial appointments.

The Attorney-General: My noble friend the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, has been considering the question of making available to all those who are newly appointed to judicial office a course of

lectures and discussions on sentencing and the treatment of offenders. The Lord Chancellor hopes to be in a position to introduce this scheme very shortly.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of Order. Is not this Question out of order as being an indirect attack on both branches of the legal profession?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but the Question is not out of order.

Mr. Whitaker: If such training is necessary for new magistrates, is it not more necessary for new High Court judges who, although eminent lawyers, never spent their careers near a criminal case?

The Attorney-General: Such judges will be entitled, and indeed will be invited, to join these courses, which will begin, we hope, early in the coming year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Kenya Asians (Emigration to United Kingdom)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if the 200,000 Kenya Asians who are leaving Kenya, and who want to emigrate to the United Kingdom seeking jobs, will be included in the 7,500 limit imposed by the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962.

The Joint-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): Persons of Asian descent resident in Kenya and wishing to come to the United Kingdom for employment do not require vouchers if they hold United Kingdom passports which exempt them from control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. I do not, however, accept the hon. Member's account of the present position or his estimate of the numbers involved.

Sir C. Osborne: The estimates of the numbers involved were given by The Times, which is a reputable newspaper. As we have the highest unemployment in this country for 30 years, is it not madness to bring in a lot more new labour to flood an already overcrowded market? Would not the hon. Gentleman look at the matter from that angle?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that immigration control comes under not the Ministry of Labour but the Home Office. If he has any questions on it, he should refer them to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman denies the figure of 200,000 contained in this Question, could he give us the estimate of his Department of the number of Kenya Asians who will be entitled to come to this country?

Mr. Fernyhough: I agree that maybe 200,000 are entitled to come, but the numbers which have come over in the last two years do not indicate that anything like even a small percentage of the 200,000 intend to take advantage of the facilities available to them.

Commonwealth Immigrants (Work Permits)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that this winter will produce two million totally unemployed, on short-time, or deprived of their usual overtime, he will now cease issuing work permits to intending Commonwealth immigrants.

Mr. Fernyhough: No, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: If the Minister does not agree with the estimate I have given of 2 million unemployed this winter, partially or fully, what figure has he in mind —1¾million?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not prepared to give the figure. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that in the 20 years that he has been here he seems to be happy only when he is preaching gloom.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: When the hon. Gentleman says that he is not prepared to give the figure, does he mean that there is no figure, or that he has a figure which he will not communicate to the House?

Mr. Fernyhough: As anyone who has analysed the recent figures knows, the trend shows not only that we have stabilised the position but that seasonally it is better than it was three months ago. We hope that the position will improve as a result of the additional efforts which the

Government are making, particularly in the development areas.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend concur in the opinion of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) about the figure on the front of the Young Conservatives' paper?

Mr. Fernyhough: I have not seen it, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend would send me a copy.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In view of the hard winter ahead, would it not be kinder on these immigrants to cut down the number of vouchers in the forthcoming six months to avoid any possibility of trouble?

Mr. Fernyhough: Again, I can only say that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the question of immigration control is for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Labour.

Unemployed Persons (Southend)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour how many people at the most recent convenient date are registered as unemployed in the Southend area; what percentage of the working population this represents; and on what date at a similar period of the year either the number of unemployed or the percentage has been higher.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 9th October, 1967, 2,409 persons were registered as unemployed giving an unemployment rate for all employees of 4·1 per cent. The previous highest comparable October rate was in 1948, when it was also 4·1 per cent.
Comparable figures are available only from 1948, the date when the National Insurance Act, 1946, came into operation.

Mr. Channon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is an extremely high figure indeed, considering the time of year, and before many people who are seasonally employed will come on the list? Does he recognise that Southend, like a great many other places, is very worried about the situation which is likely to develop this winter?

Mr. Fernyhough: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. Because of the


unemployment rate in his constituency, I hope that the Hunt Committee, which is to look at what I would call the areas which have something above the national average in unemployment but not comparable to the development areas, will consider the problem. But he knows that in Southend there is now going ahead a great office development which it is anticipated will provide jobs for many thousands, which should absorb most of those who are now on the register.

Sir S. McAdden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the significance of the figures which he has given? He said that the figure of 4·5 per cent. in 1967, under a Labour Government, was equalled only in 1948, under a previous Labour Government. It is significant for the people of Southend that this figure is recorded at a time when the seasonal workers are fully employed, because the season in Southend does not end until the middle of October.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is true that the figures, as a percentage, are identical with those in 1948. But the present high rate of unemployment in the area results from the fact that commuters are excluded from the insured employees in Southend on whom the unemployment is calculated. If they were included, the unemployment rate would not differ much from the national average.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hunt Committee. If action in this area and many other similar so-called grey areas throughout the country is awaiting the report of the Hunt Committee, may I ask the hon. Gentleman when that Committee will report?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman when it will report, but we hope that it will do so as soon as it has had a good look at the position and has been able to determine what it thinks should be done.

Sir S. McAdden: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and myself will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in Aden.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in Aden.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in South Arabia.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The High Commissioner, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, has returned to London for consultations about arrangements for independence.
Discussions are taking place in Cairo between representatives of the National Liberation Front (N.L.F.) and the Front for the Liberation of the Occupied South Yemen (F.L.O.S.Y.) with a view to the formation of a caretaker Government for South Arabia. Regrettably there have recently been some terrorist incidents in Aden, but otherwise the situation there and in South Arabia as a whole is relatively quiet and the interfactional truce is being largely observed.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the Government have now reduced Aden to a state of chaos? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the £50 million promised to the Federal Government will be transferred to the people who claim to rule and who have been shooting our soldiers and civilians? What are the Government prepared to do about known friends of Britain, such as Sheikh Mohammed Farid and Fadhli Al-Abdali, members of the Federal Government, who were betrayed by the British Government?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of extremely important questions, most, if not all, of which will have to be looked at again in the light of the developing situation. I should prefer to avoid detailed comments today until things are a little clearer. Matters are progressing and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is most anxious to come down to the House to make a


full statement and to keep the House fully informed of the position in South Arabia and Aden.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in Britain that the continued blood-letting in Aden seems to go on all the time? In view of this, would it not be best for British troops to leave Aden now before January so that the whole dispute can be resolved by the Arabs themselves and that British troops should be out of the scene completely?

Mr. Roberts: That is certainly a point which must be looked at and considered carefully. As I have previously said, the position is developing and I do not think that I would help the House today if I were to engage in any detailed comments. I repeat that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to give the House the fullest possible information as soon as possible.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that his right hon. Friend makes the statement before the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech? When he makes it, will he tell us whether there is any alteration in the date for leaving Aden?

Mr. Roberts: I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Maxwell: Would my hon. Friend agree that all this trouble in Aden would never have arisen had it not been for the idiotic Federation scheme of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)? Would he further agree that in the circumstances the best thing for us to do is to get out as soon as possible?

Mr. Roberts: All those points will be considered in the light of today's discussion. I regret that, as of now, it is not possible for me to engage in any detailed discussion.

Sir L. Heald: As the Minister of State has mentioned recent incidents in Aden, may I ask whether he will give the House some information about the death of Mr. Rose, a member of the Foreign Service, who was shot in Aden on Friday? May I, on behalf of the parents of Mr. Rose, ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware, first, that they are grate-

ful to the Foreign Office for the kindness and courtesy which it has shown in connection with this sad matter, that they fully appreciate that he was on duty and bound to be in danger, but that they would wish, on behalf of other parents and families who may be affected in the same way, to be assured that steps are being taken to ensure so far as possible that those on Her Majesty's service who are not actually engaged in military operations should be given the maximum protection?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said about the late Derek Rose. I think that the whole House would want to join him and myself in deploring this vile act and in extending to the family of Mr. Rose our profoundest sympathy.
In regard to continued security and safety, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, every possible step is being taken in the conditions obtaining in this troubled area to ensure the maximum safety and security of other British nationals, and, indeed, of the population generally.

Mr. Sandys: Now that the Government's policy of weakness and vacillation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—has, as was inevitable, led to the triumph of terrorism, is it not humbug—[Interruption.]

Mr. Maxwell: The right hon. Gentleman cannot wash his hands of it.

Mr. Sandys: —for the Minister to talk about handing over power to a caretaker Government when all he is doing is capitulating to gangsters?

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman should not lightly use the word "humbug". He is very facile today with solutions for the problems which he created.

Mr. James Davidson: Will the Minister inform us whether there is any truth in the newspaper assertion that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan advised immediate withdrawal from Aden? Will he also say at the same time when we may expect a full statement from the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Roberts: Sir Humphrey is in London for consultations. The visit was


arranged before the present upsurge of incidents in Aden. No doubt the timing of withdrawal will be discussed. These are matters for very careful consideration and, as I have said, a statement will be made. My right hon. Friend will come to the House and keep it fully informed of the progress of consideration and any decisions made.

GIBRALTAR

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations over Gibraltar.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that in the light of the Gibraltar referendum result the question of the future sovereignty of the Rock will be excluded from any further talks with Spain.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will now advise the United Nations that Her Majesty's Government does not propose to resume talks with Spain about Gibraltar, in view of the result of the recent referendum;
(2) what action he proposes to take to induce Spain to revert to normal relations with Gibraltar.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): When he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly on 26th September, my right hon. Friend made clear our position on Gibraltar. In keeping with his remarks on that occasion, and with his conversation in New York with the Spanish Foreign Minister, he has since told the Spanish Ambassador in London that talks on Anglo-Spanish relations, including the question of Gibraltar, could begin towards the end of November between senior officials of the two Governments.

Mr. Wall: Have not such talks in the past always brought about intensification of the blockade? Now that Gibraltar has displayed her overwhelming loyalty to this country, what plans has the hon. Gentleman for requiting that loyalty and ending the Spanish blockade?

Mr. Rodgers: Of course, it is true, and we freely and gladly acknowledge, that the people of Gibraltar have made their views known. It would be a mistake, however, as I think the House would agree, to assume that everything is satisfactory from the point of view of the people of Gibraltar, who are subject to irksome restrictions. In the talks, we will try to bring about an improvement in the situation and, if we can, remove any misunderstandings which still exist between our countries.

Mr. George Jeger: Is it not time that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary realised the uselessness of talking about Gibraltar to Spain? Is it not time that we considered retaliatory measures?

Mr. Rodgers: No. The House generally accepts, I think, that it is better to talk if there is any possibility of fruitful results.

Mr. Jeger: What possibility is there?

Mr. Rodgers: Although I fully understand the irritation and the anxieties which we have had in the House about the situation in Gibraltar, if talks will improve the circumstances of the people who are there it is absolutely right—and I hope that the House will endorse this —that the Government should be prepared to talk at official level.

BALTIC BONDS

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position concerning the settlement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the Baltic creditors' claims and the possibility of renewing a Stock Exchange quotation.

Mr. William Rodgers: Exchanges are still continuing with the Soviet Authorities about the formulation of the Agreement on post-1939 financial and property claims and counter-claims. Stock Exchange dealings in Baltic bonds were resumed on 2nd October.

Sir W. Teeling: While fully realising that that has happened since I put down the Question, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can give us some indication of how long it will take before this matter is finally settled, and whether it


will require Parliamentary procedure, and discussion in the House, and also whether we have now paid to the Soviet Republics all the sums which they claimed so that there is nothing more to go?

Mr. William Rodgers: I do not think I should be tempted into being dogmatic about the date by which an agreement may be reached because if I were to be dogmatic I might possibly mislead the House, which I would not wish to do, but we certainly hope for faster progress. It is the case that legislation would be required before the process of distribution took place. We are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is about this and will move as fast as we possibly can.

Mr. Blaker: Have the Government paid over to the Soviet Union the sum which was agreed they would pay at the time of Mr. Kosygin's visit here in Februtary, or is that still outstanding?

Mr. Rodgers: This is one of the matters which is still left to be finally settled.

COMET AIRCRAFT (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Rankin: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the disaster which occurred on Thursday, 12th October, to the Comet 4 airliner in the Mediterranean off the Turkish coast.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As the House knows, a Comet aircraft belonging to British European Airways met disaster early on the morning of 12th October during a flight from Athens to Nicosia.
The aircraft, which was carrying a crew of seven and 59 passengers, is believed to have been flying at a height of about 29,000 feet in clear weather and was about 100 miles east of Rhodes when the accident occurred.
The accident is being investigated by my Accidents Investigation Branch and a team of investigators was at once sent to the area when the news of the accident was received. The investigation is continuing.
So far, the bodies of 51 of the victims have been recovered. The House will,

I know, wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragic disaster.
The House will also join me in expressing gratitude to the crews of the ships and aircraft of various nationalities who joined in the search operation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rankin: I am sure that Members on both sides will endorse the note of sympathy which my right hon. Friend has struck. Can he say whether or not at points in its flight this aircraft was flying at a height of 40,000 feet? Secondly, is it the case that today all Comet aircraft have been grounded, and that that decision was due to the discovery of a flaw in the shell of this aircraft?
Why, in the interests of public safety, did my right hon. Friend not right away demand the grounding of all these aircraft after the disaster?

Mr. Crosland: No. With respect to my hon. Friend he is not correctly informed. The aircraft have not been grounded—for this reason, that we know insufficient about the cause of the accident to justify their grounding; and the safety record of the Comet 4, which is good. For that reason the Air Registration Board, which advises me in matters of airworthiness, has closely considered the question of grounding, but has found no reason for grounding the Comet 4B and I do not see any reason to disagree with the Board.
If any major defect were to be discovered during the investigation I would not hesitate, if I were so advised, to ground the aircraft while the defect was remedied.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it not very important for the standing of the Comet for the right hon. Gentleman to make it quite clear that, however unintentionally, his hon. Friend may have given a very unhappy impression because of the very recent accident concerning this very remarkable plane? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that the pilot of that plane, who was a constituent of mine, was one of the most experienced of the fleet, and that


there is no reason whatever why any further potential passengers should, at any rate so far as is known at present, have cause for anxiety in using either B.E.A. or this type of plane?

Mr. Crosland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I confirm what he said about the pilot, and I also confirm the fact that, as I have said, there is no reason to suppose that the Comet 4 is a dangerous plane; on the contrary, the safety record of the plane is excellent, and I fully confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. R. Carr: While welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Comet 4, which I think extremely important, may I ask, can he, in view of the suggestions which have been made, undertake to inform the House, and, therefore, the public, immediately if and when any real clue is obtained as to the cause of this disaster?

Mr. Crosland: Certainly. In any case, the report of the investigation made to me will automatically be made available to the House, and if, before the investigation is complete, any significant clue were to come to light, I would certainly let the House know.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend know, and, if not, will he inquire, whether any notable person was due to travel on this plane—I refer to the possibility of sabotage—and whether his flight was either put forward or back so that he travelled on a different plane?

Mr. Crosland: There is no present information to suggest that any sabotage occurred, but, of course, it is one possible aspect of the investigation, which we are, naturally, pursuing.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what effect this disaster is likely to have on the programme of 50 maritime Comets, known as Nimrods, I believe, which have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Crosland: I would not like to answer that without notice, but, so far as I know, no effect at all.

Mr. Manuel: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House the actual cause of the Comets now being grounded—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Crosland: There seems to be a total misapprehension about this. No Comets have been grounded at all. Therefore, the question does not arise.

Mr. Manuel: They have not been grounded?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Crouch: May I draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that when there were two other accidents to Comets nine or 10 years ago extensive examination and exploration was made into the cause of those accidents? Is he considering making such an extensive examination and investigation now with the use of the bathyscaphe submarine to obtain the parts of this machine which has crashed, so that evidence may come to light as to the cause of this accident, and also as to future aircraft construction?

Mr. Crosland: I must emphasise that the accidents to which the hon. Member referred, the accidents of nine years ago, were to Comet 1. Comet 4 is virtually a different aircraft from Comet 1.
As to the question of these salvage operations, I am considering their feasibility now. We have had discussions with the Ministry of Defence and with the American authorities, but I cannot disguise from the House that there are very serious practical difficulties of the depth of the sea bed, which may rule them out, and of the nature of the sea bed, and, of course, the difficulty of locating the instruments we are looking for.
Certainly, I have not closed my mind to undertaking this, and if it gives any reasonable chance of success at all I shall not hesitate to order it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend must realise that the statement I made was not a careless statement. We had that official information this morning. At Abbotsinch Airport—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Member, that is not a point of order at all; it is a point of argument.

Mr. Crosland: May I answer that question, because a very important point of public interest is involved. I must reiterate that no Comets have been grounded as a result of this crash. My hon. Friend may be referring to a totally different fact, which is that two Comets have suffered from engines which have overheated, but has nothing to do with the Comet whatsoever, and, indeed, is something, which, as he, with his experience, must know, is liable to happen to the engine of any aircraft at any time. These two questions are totally unconnected with each other.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE EARL ATTLEE

3.37 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Since we last met the House and the country have suffered a grievous loss by the death of Lord Attlee. He was a Member of this House for 33 years, and since 1955 had maintained his connection with the Parliament he loved through his membership of another place.
Clem Attlee was born and brought up in the Victorian age, but there are few men, if any, who have done more in our own generation to speed the process of change from the country he knew as a young man to the country in which we are living today. The need for that change he saw when, as a young man, down from Oxford, he threw himself into social work in the East End of London. His keen brain and his deep social conscience enabled him to translate the problems which he saw all round him as a social worker at Toynbee Hall into the policies which found expression in the minority Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1909, a Report which he worked on with the Webbs and Beveridge, a Report which charted the course of social reform for the next 40 years.
His service in the war of 1914–18 equally opened his eyes to world problems and to the causes of war. He came back to his social work hating war, but, equally, as a result of all that he had seen, reinforced in his dedication to a classless society. He entered local government. He became Mayor of Stepney and, when he came to the House in 1922, he not only knew the problems of

poverty in an area where to be old, to be sick, to be disabled, to have a large family entailed conditions which meant, as he saw it, a denial of fundamental human freedom; he felt these problems himself, and he dedicated himself to ending them.
Thirteen years later he became Leader of the Opposition—a stop-gap appointment, as it was then regarded, but an appointment which his Parliamentary ability and his personal and political integrity made a lasting one.
His experience, first in junior and then more senior office, strengthened his administrative grasp and, at the same time, he extended his knowledge of world affairs.
The India Commission gave him a knowledge—and a mission—which he could never lay aside. His early realisation of the Nazi threat led him with great courage to proclaim the need for adequate British defences at a time when for him, as for Winston Churchill on the other side of the House, this needed courage in dealing with those who did not see the issues as clearly as they did.
When the fateful decisions had to be taken, his resolve was never in doubt. He led his party into the great wartime coalition. As Deputy Prime Minister, he played an invaluable part in the war, not least in forging with Winston Churchill the national unity necessary to mobilise our people for victory.
Loyally playing his full part in every major war decision, he took charge of the Cabinet Committees dealing with the home front, and in the later war years—as the requirements of the war and of allied consultation meant that Winston Churchill had to be away from this country for long periods at a time—Attlee presided over the Cabinet, as Sir Winston later testified, with imagination and crisp effectiveness.
In 1945, he led his party to a great electoral victory and became Prime Minister of a country shattered by the war but determined to rebuild our industry, our economic strength and our influence in the world.
The vast problems occasioned by the transition from the war economy to peace economy were overcome with calm


efficiency and the minimum of social disturbance, in marked contrast to the years after the First World War of which Attlee had such vivid memories.
Never for one moment in those years of unprecedented economic difficulty did he lose the vision which had launched him into national politics—the vision of a social revolution. Fainter hearts than his would have used the nation's economic difficulties as a reason for postponing social advance. He felt, on the contrary, that the greater the economic difficulties, the greater the need for social justice.
So the creation of the Welfare State, the attack on poverty, was given a very real priority in the work of his Government and the work of the party which he led. Before he laid down office, he could have claimed—though it was not in his nature to claim—that Britain's social services led the world and were a model for the world to copy.
His personal identification with this task—and here I know that I can call to witness my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths)—his support, when support was needed, in launching the National Health Service, I believe gave him the greatest satisfaction of anything that he achieved in the whole of his public life. He insisted on speaking on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, and those of us who heard and were moved by that typically brief speech know why he had chosen to speak and how much depth of feeling and experience, too, lay behind the words which he used. I remember noticing his insistence on the role of the local authorities in the Welfare State when he spoke that afternoon.
These were the years, too, of post-war reconstruction of a shattered Europe and a divided world. With Ernest Bevin, he set out to exert a moral influence in world affairs, as Ernest Bevin reminded us, far beyond the influence which Britain's military position and run-down economic position might have been thought to justify.
Clem Attlee was one of the first to see the need for the Western Alliance and played a historic part in creating it. But his vision was always of a world in which regional alliances, though envisaged in the United Nations Charter

which he had helped to create, would disappear in a wider world unity leading to his vision of a world Government.
But the greatest expression of his vision for the future was his historic decision to give freedom and self-government to the people of India and Pakistan, of Burma and Ceylon. This, for him, was the logical consequence of his work on the Royal Commission. It was the logical outcome, too, of all he had seen during a war which, by its world-wide character, by its very nature, had liberated forces which history and common sense demanded must be given expression. A historian to his innermost being, he applied the lessons of the nineteenth century to the problems of the twentieth. He recalled that the hopes of the new Europe after Napoleon were frustrated by a Holy Alliance, which attempted to hold back the forces of nationalism, of self-determination, which were then sweeping Europe.
Equally, he recognised that after the First World War the League of Nations, which he had so firmly supported, had died, not only because it lacked authority, but because it failed to assert the need for change. The lessons which, as a historian, he had learnt from Europe, as a citizen of the world he knew must be applied to Asia.
When, therefore, he decided on Indian independence—none knew more than he all the problems that had to be solved—he insisted on the magic of the time-table which has become an essential part of constructive decolonialisation. It was a conscious decision to realise and not to contain the forces of history. But it was more than that. It was an irreversible blow for the dignity of man being struck by a man who had come from Stepney to this House determined to assert the dignity of man.
It was also a signal that the old imperialism had ended and that a new Commonwealth had been called into being. Lord Attlee was the architect of the Commonwealth as we know it today. It was his decision at one stroke—to give freedom and self-government to 400 million people, to give to them the means not only of controlling their own destinies, but of raising themselves from the primeval poverty of centuries. Because it was done in friendship, those millions


were able to go forward—and had the good sense to go forward—on the basis of an administrative machine which Britain had created. But, against a wider background of history, it created a new alternative in the world, a third road which was neither the Communist road nor the road of old or new imperialism.
Mr. Speaker, when that decision was taken, nothing gave him more satisfaction than the moment—one of those moments we will all remember—when, across the Floor of this House, Winston Churchill ended a generation of controversy by praising not only the outcome, but—with a generosity that moved all of us—the man who had made that outcome possible.
The day Clem Attlee died, I said:
Centuries from now when the history of our age comes to be written, this act of statesmanship will be recognised as one of the most important events of our time".
I am confident that that judgment will stand the test of time.
Mr. Speaker, as one of those who were privileged to serve in Clem Attlee's Administration, there are many things, many stories of his greatness and of his humanity, which today, had I time, I would feel like recording.
I have referred to his essential greatness of vision, vision for his own people here at home and vision for the world. But that vision was made a reality by his sharp administrative grasp, and his insistence that Cabinet government must be made to work. He laid down the rules for his Government like a martinet, and he enforced them. Except in an emergency papers had to be circulated in good time and had to bring out the essentials of the problem, the points for decision.
Woe betide—and there are right hon. Friends of mine today who will confirm what I am saying—the Minister who submitted a paper that was sloppy in its expression, or who was not on top of his job, or who relied on civil servants to do his thinking for him. His rebukes—whether in Cabinet, or in private meetings at No. 10 when he summoned the Ministers to his presence—were fierce and devastating. But, equally, when understanding and help were needed, Clement Attlee never failed.
Today, we mourn one of our colleagues, a great Parliamentarian and an

orator who let words—and as few of them as possible—and facts speak their own message. We mourn a man who, in his quiet, effective, modest way, led a great democracy out of the age in which he was born and had spent his youth, into the world in which we are now living. We mourn a colleague who had a vision of the world he wanted to see, and who had the courage to play his part in making that vision a reality. But for very many of us, not only those who served under him in that great post-war Administration, but of all parties here, we mourn the passing of a friend, a friend who was generous to his colleagues in success, who was understanding in times of difficulty and stress, a man of enormous courage, and not only in his public life.
To those in this House who knew him best, he was a man who drew great strength from his family life, even after the tragedy which overtook him when Lady Attlee died. Because that was what his life was about. It was his devotion to his own family which enabled him to express in his public life the social conscience which had brought him into Parliament, the Socialist faith which inspired him for 60 years, and which, in his public life, found expression not in political abstractions and arid controversies, but in seeking to use the power—power which he never sought for himself —to enrich the lives of countless families in this country, and by his fight for peace and democracy to give to others far beyond our shores the happiness that he had found for himself.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: I rise to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the late Lord Attlee, and I do so on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Prime Minister has been able to make his eloquent tribute as one who served in Lord Attlee's Administration, and knew him intimately. For most of us here Lord Attlee came from another political generation. Most of his work, first as Leader of the Opposition, then as Deputy Prime Minister in time of war and this country's greatest need, and finally as Prime Minister, was accomplished before many of us were Members of this House.
I only once had the opportunity of talking personally to the late Lord Attlee. It was an entirely unexpected encounter towards the end of the war, when, late one night, I was on my way to rejoin my regiment. I happened to meet Mr. Attlee's Parliamentary Private Secretay, the father of the present Home Secretary, who had shown me great kindness at Oxford. He was waiting for the Deputy Prime Minister so that they could relax together after a long day's committee meetings.
When the Deputy Prime Minister arrived, I was introduced to him. We chatted together for some time, and the Home Secretary's father having told Mr. Attlee of my somewhat rebellious Conservative tendencies at Oxford, suggested that I might be pushed a little further and be a promising member of the new Labour Party which was to emerge, which was to sweep the country at the election which was bound to come soon. Mr. Attlee adopted what I came later to know as his most quizzical expression, sucked at his pipe, and we pursued the matter no further.
From this side of the House we speak from the outside. It is not for us to judge Mr. Attlee as a party political leader, but a man who was able to lead his party, broken and defeated as it was in 1931, to the overwhelming triumph of 1945, must have had very remarkable qualities indeed. We can pay full tribute to him for his work as Deputy Prime Minister, when he complemented so much that Winston Churchill did to win the Second Word War. Mr. Attlee showed great courage in taking his party into that Coalition, and the Prime Minister has rightly paid tribute to the part that he played in achieving national unity.
As Prime Minister Mr. Attlee must, I suppose, have been one of the most criticised men of modern times, and after his retirement he received perhaps all too fulsome praise which I cannot believe he really relished. The judgment of history will probably be somewhere between the two, but that is for the historian. I suggest, however, that by any criteria Mr. Attlee must be considered one of the most effective Prime Ministers of modern times.
The way in which he handled the great events of the Parliaments of 1945 to 1951 must surely show that. At home,

an immense programme of social legislation, and the development of atomic and nuclear weapons, almost entirely on his own responsibility, and overseas the development of the Empire into the Commonwealth, the creation of N.A.T.O., the organisation for European economic development, the Berlin airlift, Korea, and rearmament, were tremendous burdens for any Prime Minister to bear, and he carried them superbly.
But above all, perhaps, we in this House saw that he was Prime Minister in a Cabinet which contained the massive personality of Ernest Bevin, the brilliant intellect of Stafford Cripps, the skilled political ability of Herbert Morrison, and the passionate enthusiasm of Aneurin Bevan, and he held that Cabinet together so that they could bring forth their achievements during the Parliament of 1945 to 1950.
In words, Lord Attlee was the master of the understatement. In action, he was the epitome of economy. On many occasions we on this side of the House enjoyed his brief, pointed speeches, and his mordant wit. We noticed how he achieved his ends with the utmost economy of effort. He was a true servant of the State, first as a regimental officer, and then in both local and national government. But, above all, what is important for us here is that he had a simple and deep love of Parliament, its proceedings, and its people.
At the end of what he called his autobiographical notes, which were so typical of the man, he wrote these words, which have often been quoted:
I have been a very happy and fortunate man in having lived so long in the greatest country in the world, in having a happy family life, and in having been given the opportunity of serving in a state of life to which I never expected to be called.
Mr. Speaker, that is the modest man of singular achievements to whom we pay tribute today.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes which have been paid to Lord Attlee. I vividly remember the first occasion when I was privileged to meet him, about 20 years ago, as one of a dozen undergraduates who surrounded him at the conclusion of a great meeting at Oxford. Each of us immediately


realised that he was a very kind man who was intensely interested in young people and felt entirely at ease in their company.
As Prime Minister he came in for much criticism, very often extremely bitter, from many who, I think, now would be the first to recognise his qualities. Perhaps a reason for this was that it was some time before the British people pierced his outward modesty and reserve to discover that he was a man of real courage and utter integrity, and deep compassion.
I think that it is no exaggeration to say that his decision to create the Far Eastern Commonwealth, and the dramatic extension of the Welfare State, made a permanent impact on the lives of millions of people all over the world.
It is a remarkable coincidence that America and Britain, who produced such dominant and dominating war leaders as Roosevelt and Churchill, should have seen them succeeded by Truman and Attlee, each of whom sustained the burdens of the free world and each of whom recorded distinguished peacetime achievements to their credit. Attlee was a very great public servant, and I believe that in time he will come to be regarded as one of our most respected Prime Ministers. He is certainly assured of an honoured place in the history of this House.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: When I left my university I went as a resident to Tonybee Hall, where Mr. Attlee had been secretary, and I worked in the club in Limehouse when he was the local Member of Parliament. Therefore, before I came here I realised the respect and affection that he was held in in Whitechapel and throughout dockland.
When I came here in 1929 he was away in India, on the Simon Commission and, therefore, did not take office early in that Government. Later he became Postmaster-General, but he did not make quite that impression that modern Postmasters-General make, because he did not make frequent issues of gaudy new stamps.
In those days Postmasters-General were not noticed very much. Indeed, in my first Session here Mr. Attlee made

only one speech, and that was one in which he advocated a Ministry of Defence. Then came the surprise of 1931—the sudden transformation of an unknown Postmaster-General to be, first, deputy-leader and then leader of his party.
Mr. Attlee led that small team with great efficiency, and it was then that the whole nation began to realise the qualities that were latent in him. To my mind, he always retained the qualities of a major in the South Lancashire Regiment —a stern sense of duty and, I thought, a very able and efficient disciplining of his party. He was abrupt in speech, incisive, and a very great debunker of oratorical extravagance. He had the great ability to pounce on the heart of a problem at once.
I should like to refer to what I think is one of the best illustrations of that ability. In the Committee of Privileges, in 1953, the assistant editor of the Sunday Express was being examined about an interview with a certain Member of Parliament. Mr. Attlee asked the assistant editor:
Have you a part-time member of the staff to advise you on matters of taste? 
The reply was:
Not on taste, on legal matters which include questions of privilege and contempt.
Mr. Attlee:
But not good taste?
The assistant editor:
No
Mr. Attlee:
I thought not.
To a back bench Member, Mr. Attlee set an example to all Ministers and future Prime Ministers by his constant attendance in the Chamber. There he was, curled up on the Front Bench with his feet on the Table, indulging in his normal pastime of doodling. But he was listening to every word of the debate, and he was ready to intervene. However much one disagreed with the policies or speeches of Mr. Attlee, no one could ever doubt his strong sense of loyalty to the Throne and the Commonwealth, and his love for the British people. It was this loyalty to the new Commonwealth—of which he was, as the Prime Minister said, one of the principal architects—that made him oppose those who, in his judgment, would have imperilled its future by our entry into the Common Market.
In his speeches Mr. Attlee used an economy of words and eschewed all drama. I always felt that the speeches he made as Prime Minister displayed his humility and his doggedness and I want to remind the House of the words he used at the end of the first speech he made—on 16th August, 1945—when he came back victorious after the General Election of that year, because those words are relevant today and they sum up the guiding principles of his character. He said:
To win through this critical period in our history will require, I think, the continuance of something of the spirit which won the war, a spirit which did not allow private or sectional interests to obscure the common interest of us all and the love which we all have for our native land and for our people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 113.]
Mr. Attlee was a great patriot and a strong leader. Like my right hon. Friend, I always felt that he was somewhat surprised to find himself in that position. But he always determined that nothing and no one should deter him from carrying ant that responsibility with courage and to his own satisfaction.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I cannot hope to emulate the eloquent and moving speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. All I can do is to offer a modest tribute, in simple language, on my behalf and that of many back benchers who knew our late colleague.
I was associated with Clem Attlee for more than 50 years. We were both members of the old Independent Labour Party before the First World War. He joined in 1907; I joined in 1903. We both came to the House in 1922. We were both in the first Labour Government. Before his death we were the only survivors of that Government. It is a melancholy reflection that all the old familiar faces have gone and that I remain the sole survivor of Ramsay Macdonald's Government in 1924.
Since Clem Attlee's death, the question has been asked: was he a great Prime Minister? Perhaps he was not cast in the mould of Winston Churchill or Lloyd George. He had no oratorical pretensions. He had no magnetic personality. But there resided in him practical qualities which I venture to say—with the highest respect to other Prime

Ministers—were unmatched by many of his predecessors.
Clem Attlee's political intelligence was nurtured among the poverty, misery and squalor of the East End of London. His Socialism was not inspired by economic theory, by doctrinaire considerations and, least of all, by Marxist philosophy. His intrusion before the First World War into the arena of social well-being was based exclusively on his desire to succour the poor, and to mitigate the harsh severity of their existence.
Now Clem Attlee has gone. Reference has been made to his brevity. I suffered occasionally from that brevity when, as a member of his Cabinet, I fell by the wayside and was occasionally rebuked. I could always sense when the rebuke was coming, when he characteristically began to scratch his head. I also recall his keen sense of humour, his cricketing stories when he laughed uproariously in the telling and those who listened had not the faintest idea what it was all about.
Clem Attlee, an unobstrusive social worker in East London before the First World War, was a valiant advocate in Labour's cause, above all a staunch patriot. In the early years he had no expectation of high office, but there was conferred upon him in later years an Earldom; the Order of Merit; he became a Companion of Honour and Knight of the Garter—truly an eventful personal chapter in the history of British politics.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to Lord Attlee. I first met him when I entered the House at the very end of the 1931 Parliament. He was then Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He was very nice to young men and new Members. One day he spoke to me in the Smoking Room, and advised me to make a speech about unemployment. "That", he said, "is the big issue of the day ". I told him that I did not know a great deal about unemployment, to which he said, "Well, by the time you have prepared a speech for the House of Commons, you will know quite a lot".
Later, I served with him in the wartime Coalition Government and, of course, got to know him a great deal better. I also had the rare privilege, for a Conservative, of serving as acting


Minister of Works for nearly a week in Lord Attlee's Labour Government in 1945. There was some delay in sorting out the new Ministerial appointments, and, pending the announcement of my successor, I was asked to carry on.
Lord Attlee's fairness, his sense of duty, his love of his country and of his fellow men and his ability to combine strength with modesty earned him the affection and respect of all who knew him. The nation has lost a faithful friend and servant.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I would join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues who have spoken in tribute to Clem Attlee. When I first came to the House in March, 1936, Clem Attlee was at the beginning of his long tenure of office as Leader of our party, as Prime Minister and as Leader of the Opposition. After the by-election, when I had gone through the traditional procedure and taken my seat on the third bench opposite in the old Parliament, one of the old guard of Labour M.P.s, one of the "cloth cap" M.P.s, turned to me and said, "My young man, welcome to you. Always remember one thing: you can always depend on Clem."
This is my tribute to him today, as one who was privileged to serve under him for nearly 20 years in government and opposition—that, through all the changes of fortune during his long period of service to our party and our country, one could always depend on Clem. In the long run, it is integrity and dependability which count most in life.
My second memory is of an invitation from him to join him in his constituency in the East End when my country was suffering grievously from economic depression, as the East End was, too. I joined him at a gathering in the East End, at which one of the dockers—it was a strange contrast to meet Clem Attlee among the dockers—said to me, "How is our little man doing?"
Behind that phrase, "our little man", was real deep affection. The little man with hidden greatness, the quiet man who created the Welfare State and began the transformation from Empire to Commonwealth; we in this House and in the country have cause to remember and bless the memory of the quiet man.

Orders of the Day — DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause A.—(SAFE CUSTODY ETC. OF DRUGS.)

Lords Amendment No. 3: after Clause 3, in page 4, line 6, at end insert new Clause A.

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for requiring precautions to be taken for the safe custody of drugs of any description specified in regulations which are kept on premises of a description so specified;
(b) for requiring the keeping of records of drugs in respect of which such precautions are required to be taken;
(c) for the inspection of any precautions taken or records kept in pursuance of this section; and
(d) as to the manner in which drugs are to be packed for sale by a person who, within the meaning of the regulations, is a manufacturer of drugs or a dealer in bulk in drugs.

(2) Regulations under this section may provide that such of the requirements imposed by virtue of paragraph (a) above as may be specified in the regulations shall not apply to drugs kept on premises occupied for the purposes of his business by such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (d) above; but the Secretary of State may, by a notice in writing served on such a person in such manner as may be specified by regulations under this section, specify the precautions or further precautions to be taken for the safe custody of any drugs specified in the notice which are kept on premises so specified and occupied by him as aforesaid, and the precautions specified in such a notice shall be deemed to be required by regulations made in pursuance of the said paragraph (a).

(3) Regulations under this section may also provide that where a person of a kind mentioned in section 1(2) of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 is convicted of an offence against the principal Act consisting of a contravention of regulations under this section the Secretary of State may, by a direction given in such manner and after such consultations (if any) as may be specified in the regulations, provide that the said section 1(2) shall not apply to that person while the direction remains in force.

(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 5(2) of this Act, section 14 of the principal Act (which relates to the entry and search of premises to obtain evidence of offences) shall have effect as if the reference to Part III of that Act in subsection (1)


included a reference to this section and as if references to Part I of the Schedule to that Act included references to the Schedule to the said Act of 1964; and section 16(2) of the principal Act (which among other things limits the penalty in respect of an offence relating to the keeping of books which was committed through inadvertence) shall have effect as if the reference to the keeping of books included a reference to the keeping of records in pursuance of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the provisions of any other enactment relating to matters in respect of which provision may be made under this section.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient if we discuss, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 6, in Clause 4, page 4, line 17, after "State"insert:
to give a direction in pursuance of subsection (31 of section (Safe custody etc. of drugs) of this Act or".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): It will, Mr. Speaker.
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new Clause may, in its detailed provisions, prove difficult to digest, but its aim is to give the Secretary of State a comprehensive power to impose a single code of requirements for the safe keeping, record keeping and packaging of hard and soft drugs, and to empower the police and persons authorised by the Secretary of State to enter premises to see whether the requirements are complied with. The new Clause is not intended to affect the generality of the powers which already exist.
The Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 contains in Section 11 wide powers to prevent improper use of scheduled hard drugs under international control, but there is a doubt whether the power of inspection covers all premises where scheduled drugs are kept. There are no powers in the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 to require or enforce safekeeping of scheduled soft drugs.
There is no evidence that manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists do not attend responsibly to the security of dangerous drugs. For some time, the police have felt concerned about the

pilfering of soft drugs and in 1965 a working party, which was convened by the Central Conference of Chief Constables, suggested that such drugs should be brought under dangerous drugs control to ensure better security. With the co-operation of the associations concerned, information about security arrangements was collected during 1965 from all manufacturers and dealers registered under the 1964 Act. This survey showed that in a number of firms the safeguards against theft or pilfering of soft drugs were ineffective or non-existent.
Some of the figures of pharmacy breaking will be of interest to hon. Members. In 1966, there were at least 60 cases of breaking into pharmacies in London, 35 cases in Manchester, 25 in Lancashire and 14 in Liverpool. The risk may be increased when the restrictions on supply to heroin addicts comes into effect under this Measure.
In discussions with the Home Office, the manufacturers' and wholesalers' associations have agreed that some firms have not been making sufficient effort to prevent theft and pilfering and that standards should be brought up to the level of those adopted by the most responsible. They have asked that the Home Office should be responsible for inspection and that any new provisions should allow local requirements to be fixed, as in the case of dangerous drugs, after review of the firm's procedures, organisation and premises. They have suggested that security could be improved by control over methods of packaging; that is, the sealing of containers or packs.
The Government consider that in a situation where drug trafficking appears to be increasing, and drug abuse may be progressive from soft to hard drugs, there is need for a unified system of control and inspection of the safe custody of hard and soft drugs in pharmacies—designed mainly to prevent forcible theft —and for control of safe keeping of soft drugs in the industry, adapted, as with hard drugs, to be circumstances of the individual firm. There is no evidence at present of a drug security problem outside pharmacies and industrial premises, but it would be appropriate to take powers to cover any premises where substantial stocks of drugs may be kept.
Amendment No. 6 is, to some extent, consequential. It extends the proposals to which the provision relating to tribunals and advisory bodies may be applied by regulations under Clause 4, so that they will include any proposal made by the Secretary of State to give a direction as provided by subsection (3) of the new Clause. It will be possible, if desired, to establish, by regulations, a common procedure for dealing through these tribunals and advisory bodies with any proposal to, in effect, withdraw a practitioner's authority to prescribe, possess, supply or otherwise deal in drugs scheduled under the principal Act or the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: We accept the need for the new Clause, which is one of two substantial additions proposed to the Bill. There can obviously be no quarrel with the intention to use the Bill as a vehicle for making an urgent change, although it is some way outside the original scope of the Measure. We must also accept that, like a good deal of the rest of the Bill, the proposed new Clause gives the Minister a blank cheque to make regulations which we have not seen, about which the Under-Secretary has not said very much but which, I fear, we shall be asked to approve by the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. However, I appreciate that this is to be done in consultation with the bodies concerned and, no doubt, it will be satisfactory to the industry.
Although I have a serious proposal to put in connection with the Amendment, I wish, first, to deal with some other matters which may arise and on which we require further guidance. There is no doubt that this is dealing quantitatively with by far the biggest part of the sphere of drug dependence. If we accept that amphetamines, barbiturates and their compounds represent the biggest intake, then we can accept that these proposals will deal with the safe custody and the proper keeping of records for what is the biggest part of drug dependence.
While heroin addicts are still to he numbered in hundreds and while L.S.D. and marijuana habitues are unknown in number, although they run into perhaps

thousands, we are here talking of millions of not just pills but customers. I have never found it easy to "read the riot act" to the young on the evils of drug dependence when we know that adults by the million resort to such large quantities of barbiturates and amphetamines. It is the spillover, the illicit leaks, of this huge drug trade that forms the largest and, I believe, not the least dangerous part of misuse among the young.
The Under-Secretary gave the figures of raids on premises. I estimate the number to represent about 100 raids a year. During the course of these raids about half a million pills, mainly amphetamines and barbiturates, fall into the wrong hands. However, according to American records, about one-third of all production in this line in that country gets into the wrong hands.
There are two aspects of the Amendment which I wish to discuss. The first is that we know perfectly well that the vast quantity of prescribing of these drugs which leads to a good deal of the traffic which we are anxious to check arises from the fact that doctors, many of them overworked, are induced to prescribe soft drugs in vast quantities as the modem equivalent of placebos. But this is a matter for the medical profession and not for us, although in passing this legislation we should keep the subject in mind. No regulations under the Bill will stamp out the illicit traffic as long as there is licit prescribing on the present scale.
Secondly, one reason why these raids on chemists' shops are so profitable is because enormous quantities of these drugs are held in stock. Dangerously large quantities are held in stock because, under current arrangements, it pays the retail chemist to buy in bulk. Under the National Health Service a chemist receives a fixed sum on retail purchases, but from the wholesaler and manufacturer he will receive a substantial discount for purchases made in bulk. A parcel of drugs worth, say, £25 will enable the chemist to receive a discount of 5 per cent. On a parcel worth £50 to £75 he will get a discount of 10 per cent.
If a chemist is buying from a general manufacturer a mixed parcel of drugs, the


content of the drugs about which we are speaking may be small, but if he is buying from the sort of manufacturer who is making these drugs, the parcel will consist of those drugs and he will be persuaded to buy large quantities indeed. This is a problem which the Ministry of Health should consider, because as long as unnecessarily large quantities of dangerous drugs are stored by pharmacists—and in this context I am not referring to wholesalers—the risk of raids being successful will continue and there will be a strong inducement to carry them out. I have no desire to lose chemists their precarious margins, but a system which induces the bulk purchase of amphetamines and barbiturates, in the light of what the Under Secretary has said on this matter, should be closely re-examined.
4.30 p.m.
I should like to make one subsidiary point about safe custody. At first sight it makes sense to persuade the chemist to segregate his hard drugs from his soft drugs and lock them away, and I understand that in future he will be punished if he does not do so. At the same time, this enormously simplifies the task of anyone breaking into the chemist's shop: he knows exactly where to look. Unless he is confronted with a very strong cabinet, or safe in which the dangerous drugs have been put, his task is, in a sense, made easier and not more difficult.
This is a point that a great number of chemists have had in mind. I know some who think that it is safe not to keep all their dangerous drugs, as it were, in one basket. I hope that debate in the industry will resolve what is the safest way of keeping drugs in premises which can never really be made entirely burglarproof. Discussions will be needed on how chemists in a small way of business are to be provided with cupboards, safes, or something similar by means of which they may comply with the law we are about to pass.
This Amendment represents a substantial change in the Bill and I should like now to mention my main point in connection with it. As I read the Amendment, it is designed not only to promote security but to provide a standardised scheme for keeping a record

of the drugs—and a record that can be inspected, as laid down in paragraphs (b) and (c). I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman and, through him, to the Secretary of State, that we ought to go a little further and use this opportunity, as we still can, by means of regulations to be framed, to give us a system which could eventually provide us with more facts and information and with more insight into the use and misuse of mood-changing drugs. If the House looks at the provisions of the new Clause, it will see that this is now made possible.
I am quite sure that sooner or later we will have to act in this way. This vast consumption of mood-changing drugs poses much bigger problems than some that are involved in the current controversy on the drugs question, but I shall not go into that. We shall need far more research and, for that research, far more basic information. Here we have an opportunity of providing ourselves with just that basic information. We shall need to know a lot more about the social and economic geography of the dependence on drugs, and I believe that this Amendment could be used to provide the essential raw material.
One country which is doing this is Canada, though there may be other countries. There, at least, I have had a chance to make a very cursory inspection of the system. I shall not go into details of that system now, but I should like to mention to the House, how, in Canada, by the use of a very similar provision they have made a practical job. Under the Canadian system, all drug wholesalers are required monthly to return details of sales of listed drugs—that is, drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act—to a central source. These lists are rapidly translated by a very small staff using special machines to indicate which particular doctors, chemists and hospitals have been in receipt of these supplies. Chemists make their own returns—as I understand from this Amendment they will now have to do here—on standardised forms, as, I understand, they will also have to do in this country.
In the same office where all that material is available are filed the police records of those found using drugs which are not retailed through pharmacists—L.S.D., S.T.P., marijuana and all the rest


—and of those who have been on narcotics charges. Not only does this recording of licit transactions enable inspectors —who act as I understand our own inspectors will—to make meaningful spot checks of retail chemists, but in that relatively small office, with a staff of only about two dozen, there is really a full picture of the Canadian drug scene. This is something which we lack at the moment.
I would add that those engaged in research in Canada also profit from these records, but that that stage has not yet been fully developed. I am impressed with the possibilities, and I am left with the feeling that we shall not much longer be able to afford to be without the opportunities provided by this Amendment. That is what has impelled me to mention this aspect, and I am sorry that I have not been able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman longer notice.
This system will not, of course, be universally popular with the retail chemists, but a sensible system of keeping centralised records in a standardised way would not necessarily entail a lot of work —it certainly does not in Ottawa—though it would entail some additional work. If such a system were established by regulations made under this Amendment, not only for control but for research, it might be worthwhile, under the National Health Service, to allow a very small additional payment to the chemist for his trouble in respect of prescriptions of mood-changing drugs. The details and difficulties can argue for themselves, but I am certain that sooner or later we shall have to establish some such system. We are very near to it now.
We shall not solve this immensely serious problem of drug dependence by piecemeal provisions of which, if I may say so without offence, this Bill is rather characteristic. Nor shall we cure everything only by control. Every authority to whom I have talked on the subject agrees that we need far more research. We have the makings here, for all the difficulties, of a real and important advance. To make that advance, we should have to cause trouble to certain people and possibly go to a little more expense than the Secretary of State now envisages, but regulations under this new Clause could provide the necessary framework. Beyond

that we could add, as I think we shall have to add in any case, some sort of central office where records could be collated. This work should not be just one part of the task of a very busy Home Department.
I beg the Minister to think further of the constructive uses we could make of this Amendment. I do not propose to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut—drug dependence, anyway, is no longer a nut, and I do not think that this organisation would turn out to be a sledgehammer —but we might seize this opportunity to extend the frontiers of our knowledge of a fearfully complex and, as the Under-Secretary himself said, a persistent epidemic that shows no signs at all of alleviation. That having been said, we give this proposal a fair wind.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am tempted to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on one or two points. Like him, I am in broad agreement with the new Clause, which I regard as a necessary complementary measure to the Bill as a whole. It contains provisions which I am sure will prove to be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman made two points, among others, and I want to support one of them, and to warn the Under Secretary to be a little chary about the attention he gives to the other. I will deal with the latter point first.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the biggest possible reserve of licit drugs arising from prescribing habits and from over-buying and bulk stocking by retail pharmacists. There is no doubt that this is the main source, but the remedies the right hon. Geneleman suggests are, perhaps, rather difficult to apply. One ought to be able to act without first of all placing obstructions and impediments in the way of the doctor prescribing in what he regards as the most economical way in relation to his own and his patients' time. We should also be careful about placing similar obstructions in the way of the pharmacist conducting his business on sound economic lines.
The fact remains that whatever restrictions are laid on his ordering habits and to what extent he is reduced in the amount of stock he carries, we have to remember that with the multiplicity of products of this kind we can never limit things in the way suggested


by the right hon. Gentleman. The pharmacist has to keep in stock all manner of things which come into this group and, however careful he is about the numbers he has of any particular variety, the aggregate total necessarily constitutes a constant danger. I do not think that we can get at the danger in that way, but we have to go further and look at other measures such as those suggested in this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the possibility of assistance to the pharmacist in providing proper facilities for the safe keeping of drugs. I underline very strongly what he said. I have had consultations with pharmacists who have suffered from raids. I know the difficulties which they have in making the necessary provisions in their premises. I have recently had correspondence with the Postmaster-General on possible methods of assisting retail pharmacists and exploring various kinds of burglar alarms. The answer is that, while it is understandable that no special steps can be taken to assist a particular type of trader and exceptions cannot be made, it is the business of Governments to make exceptions. If we do not make exceptions we do not need Ministers, but only need civil servants. We have to make exceptions in an exceptional situation.
Although we accept the proposed new Clause, I ask the Minister not to believe that that is the end of the story. I strongly recommend that in parallel with these steps the Under-Secretary and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who has a responsibility here, should start considering other methods of assisting in the safe keeping of drugs by the family doctor and the retail pharmacist.

Mr. Taverne: I speak again by leave of the House to comment on some of the points which have been raised. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that here we are dealing with by far the largest part of the problem because 3½ million prescriptions are for amphetamines and l5½ million are for barbiturates.
The Scientific Committee of the British Medical Association is considering the medical value of amphetamines and hopes to report in a few months on the possi-

bility of doing without them. The question of bulk purchase has been noted and will be studied in the consultations which are to take place with the trade. I also take note of the point made by the right hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) about advice on facilities for the safe keeping of drugs.
Perhaps the most important point was made on records. We certainly take the point that what is needed above all is more information of every conceivable kind. The volume of drugs makes any system of keeping records a formidable undertaking, but the intelligence value of the record system has been appreciated. We are aware of the Canadian precedent and we are also aware that in Canada the problem is of rather different proportions. It is a smaller problem and Canada has no National Health Service, but we are aware of it and the subject is being explored with special reference to possible computerisation.
Like many other questions, this is something which will require further study and consultation. I am glad that on this point there is no division of opinion in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(FURTHER EXTENSION OF POWERS UNDER THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning to "provision" and insert:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make".

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in 'he said Amendment.
Perhaps it may be convenient to consider at the same time the following two Lords Amendments: No. 5, in page 4, line 9, leave out "that" and insert "the principal", and No. 7, in page 4, line 22, leave out "that" and insert "the principal".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the House so desires.

Mr. Taverne: These Amendments are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 6, to which we have already agreed. They provide that regulations for the purposes of Clause 4 should be made not under the principal Act but by the Secretary of


State under this Measure. Regulations under the new Clause A, dealing with safe custody will relate not only to 1965 Act drugs, but also to 1964 Act drugs and it would be inappropriate to make these regulations under the former Act. So Clause 4 as proposed to be amended would also relate to 1964 Act drugs and it is appropriate, therefore, to provide that regulations under that Clause shall be made under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 4, line 22, at end insert:
(c) for the application of any of the provisions of this Act, the principal Act or regulations under either of those Acts to servants or agents of the Crown, subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be so specified."—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In the absence of express provision the Crown is not bound by the principal Act, but the Government think it desirable for the effective organisation of the new arrangements for notification of addicts and prescribing of addicts, that medical officers in special hospitals, the Prison Service and the Armed Forces should have the same statutory obligations as other practitioners as regards those requirements. This provides for certain adaptations as in certain cases may be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(FURTHER POWERS TO SEARCH AND OBTAIN EVIDENCE.)

Lords Amendment No. 9: After Clause 4, in page 4, line 22, at end insert new Clause "B":

B.—(1) If a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person is in possession of a drug in contravention of the principal Act or regulations thereunder or in contravention of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, the constable may—

(a) search that person, and detain him for the purpose of searching him;
(b) search any vehicle in which the constable suspects that the drug may be found, and for that purpose require the person in control of the vehicle to stop it;

(c) seize and detain, for the purposes of proceedings under either of the Acts aforesaid, anything found in the course of the search which appears to the constable to be evidence of an offence against either of those Acts.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as prejudicing any power of search or any power to seize or detain property which is exercisable by a constable apart from that subsection.

(3) Section 14(2) of the principal Act and section 3(1) of the said Act of 1964 (which provide for the issue of a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant to enter and search premises in connection with suspected offences under those Acts) shall have effect, in their application to Northern Ireland, with the omission of the words 'named in the warrant' and, in their application otherwise than to Northern Ireland, with the substitution for those words of the words 'acting for the police area in which the premises are situated'; and at the end of section 15 of the principal Act (which provides for the arrest of a suspected offender who may abscond or whose name and address are not known) there shall be inserted the words 'or if he is not satisfied that a name and address furnished by that person as his name and address are true'.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a very important Amendment. At the time when it was introduced in another place it was not in any way controversial and it seemed to give rise to no disquiet, but matters in this field have moved fast and different kinds of publicity have brought forward different kinds of questions. One or two articles have been written and various comments have been made which raise questions about the new powers of search given in the Clause.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who is extremely knowledgeable on this subject and often raises various questions in connection with it, asked whether police powers were adequate to deal with the whole problem of drugs. Inquiries were made about the reaction of the police to this question and they produced the answer that except in London where, as in one or two other places, special powers exist, they did not feel that their powers were adequate.
In London, there is power under section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 to stop, search and detain if a police officer has reason to suspect that someone has goods unlawfully obtained.


In these areas certainly the police have had power to stop and search if they have reasonable ground to suspect that someone is in possession of drugs, but this problem spreads far beyond London.
Outside London where there is no power to search without consent, it has been found time after time that those known to be traffickers in drugs know of their rights and refuse to give consent. It has proved impossible to search them. Only by knowing that they are in possession of drugs has it been possible to search them. Drugs are often removed long distances by lorries. It is felt that the position in London should be the same in the rest of the country and that we should no longer rely on an Act which, when passed, had nothing to do with drugs.
It has been found that there is little scope for effective action against pushers of drugs or for the restriction of unauthorised possession, unless the police have power to stop and search suspected persons and vehicles. The majority of the arrests made by the Metropolitan Police for drug offences were made following a search under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. It has, therefore, been decided to rely on a statutory provision, not one which was conceived long before the drug abuse arose, but one which deals specifically with it and which deals with the position throughout the whole country.
The Clause makes other improvements in police powers by assimilating the restrictions on the power of arrest which are imposed by Section 15 of the 1965 Act and by Section 2 of the 1964 Act and by removing the requirement in both of those Acts for the naming in search warrants of the officers who will execute the warrant.
In connection with subsection (1) it is worth pointing out that what is required is "reasonable grounds" on the part of the police officer who carries out the search. It is not a case where an officer can search without any reasonable grounds whatsoever. It is very similar to provisions which have been found satisfactory under the Firearms Act and also—I found this as a matter of surprise —in connection with the protection of rare birds. These provisions have not in the past given rise to complaint. Someone intending to use this power must be

prepared to satisfy a court that he had reasonable grounds.
As to the searching of vehicles under subsection (1,b), since there was a misapprehension in one part of the Press I must explain that there is no power to search premises without warrant. It is a power to search vehicles. Again, the constable must have reasonable ground for suspecting that someone is in unauthorised possession of a drug before he searches a vehicle. The constable cannot merely search an unattended vehicle in a car park in the general hope that he may find something incriminating.
It has been suggested that the provision that the constable will no longer have to be named in the warrant will be an exceptional provision. In fact, the reverse is the case. It is unusual for the constable to have to be named in a warrant. In this respect, the law relating to drugs will be on a par with the general practice.
Lastly, subsection (3) modifies the restriction on the powers of arrest which were conferred by Section 15 of the principal Act so as to empower the constable to make an arrest if he is not satisfied that the name and address furnished by that person are in fact his true name and address. One of the major problems the police have found in the past is that a number of people, realising that they could not be searched if they gave their name and address, gave a wrong name and a wrong address and often the officer knew that the name and address were not the correct ones.
For these reasons, we thought it right to table the Clause in another place to give these extra powers to the police and to bring the law outside London into line with that inside London. The Clause was found to be generally acceptable in another place.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The Under-Secretary rightly said that when the Amendment was proposed in another place it received the approval of the Opposition Front Bench no less than it did the support of the Government. No dissentient voice was raised.
Since then, a number of complaints and representations have been made to me about it to the effect that the Opposition should oppose the Amendment. At first, I was disposed to think that there was


something in these doubts, partly because the right of search without warrant excites deep feelings which go back a long way in our history and partly because the Amendment, if I read it right, extends outside the scope of the Bill as it had been hitherto to soft drugs and similar substances and is not confined to the hard drugs, with which it was the original purpose of the Bill to deal, and particularly outside the realm of medical prescription, which was the main purpose of the original Bill.
However, I have come to the conclusion that the Government are right and that the House ought to accept the Amendment. Because this suggested new provision has given rise to some disquiet, in my own party circles and elsewhere, I want to record why I think so. First, dealing with the matter of search as being of the first importance, this is a right to search the person and to search vehicles, and it does not appear to be —I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary confirm that it is not—a right to search premises without warrant, which gives rise to a rather different set of considerations.
Secondly, a similar power has existed —it is not right to say that this power has existed—and has been used for this purpose by the Metropolitan Police under the Metropolitan Police Act, which has been in force for a very respectably long time, and it has not given rise to a great deal of controversy or complaint. The extent to which it is used in the Metropolitan Police District in connection with drugs is considerable. I think that about 3,000 arrests a year were made under the power and that in almost every case a search of some kind was made. If the power exists and is used usefully by the police and has not given rise to complaint, the case for extending it generally to other possible centres of drug-peddling is made out.
The fact is that drugs are easily concealed and easily got rid of. If, first, the constable is limited in his power to arrest to cases where he thinks that the person concerned is likely to abscond, which would be the case were the Amendment not agreed to and which is the case at the moment; and if, secondly, he has no power to search a person until he

arrests him for that reason, a very large number of pedlars and pushers will manage in practice to escape or to get rid of the drugs they may be carrying.
My information is that this happens. Some pedlars live very rough in centres of resort of one sort or another, and not only in the Metropolis. They use their vehicles and their clothes to conceal considerable amounts of drugs. As this is both a professional and a profitable business, they are well advised as to their legal rights and manage by the skilful use of them to evade the law.
For these reasons, in spite of the doubts and anxieties which have been expressed, I believe that it is my duty to support the Government and to give my reasons for doing so. I think that they have acted rightly in asking Parliament for further extended powers in this respect.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am tempted to agree with the conclusions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but I do so with some doubt. It is a measure of the importance of the drug problem that we should devote the first day of our return to it, having spent a considerable time dealing with it before we rose for the Summer Recess. There is no hon. Member who is not anxious to beat the present drug wave and to end what for many people is becoming a difficult and in same cases a tragic situation.
The new Clause takes powers very much wider than those hitherto available. For example, it takes power to search people if they are suspected of having soft drugs. I raise no objection to that, but in that context can we be told when we are likely to have the report on L.S.D. and cannabis of the Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence? If the police are to have and are to use these powers, it is extremely important that they should be backed up by an authoritative report from this Committee.
If the Clause is passed, police constables will have the power to search anyone at any time if they have reasonable grounds for assuming the suspect to have drugs on his person. These powers have existed in London for more than


100 years and I do not think that there has been serious objection to them. I raise no objection to this extension, but there are two things which all hon. Members should bear in mind. It is the job of the House above all to back up the police when we deal with criminal matters. If the police have asked for these additional powers, we cannot refuse them. But it is also our job to make sure that relations between the police and public do not worsen.
Those relations are improving. It would be out of order to debate the breathalyser now, but there is a risk that that legislation may worsen the relations between the police and the public. I do not think that it has, because that legislation is being administered with great common sense. I hope that these new powers will also be administered by the police with common sense.
I am prepared to accept the new Clause, although I do so with some reluctance, because it is a major increase in police powers of this kind, an increase which the Government say that the police require and which the dangerous and difficult drug situation necessitates. I accept these arguments, but I do so with reluctance. I hope that we shall be told when the Sub-Committee's report will be published, because that report on soft drugs will be of considerable value, not only in this respect but in the whole of the prevention of the misuse of drugs by young people.

Mr. Taverne: By leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for their support of this provision. One must scrutinise with the greatest care any new power of search, and I would not go necessarily as far as the hon. Member in saying one must grant whatever power the police ask. One must consider very carefully whether, in fact, it is needed.
For the reasons we have given and because the power already exists in London, we feel that it can be granted. We shall not be in any way prejudicing the outcome of the work of the Sub-Committee which is considering cannabis and L.S.D. It is due to report early next year, but the content of its report

is, of course, something which it would be wrong to anticipate at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "C".—(INCREASE OF CER- TAIN PENALTIES UNDER CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT 1952. 1952 c. 44.)

Lords Amendment No. 10: in page 4, line 22, at end insert new Clause "C":

C.—(1) In relation to offences in connection with a prohibition or restriction imposed by section 2, section 7 or section 10 of the principal Act (importation and exportation of certain drugs and other substances), being offences committed after the commencement of this Act, sections 45(1), 56(2) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 shall have effect as if for the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years' there were substituted the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.

(2) In section 283(2)(a) of the said Act of 1952 (mode of trial of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years), after the words 'two years' there shall be inserted the words 'or more'.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause will increase from two years to 10 years the maximum period of imprisonment for smuggling drugs to which the principal Act refers. It is a necessary increase in penalty to deal with a gross anomaly.
The illegal possession of dangerous drugs is an offence punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, and it is an offence punishable by no more than two years' imprisonment under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. Usually the drug smuggler in the course of smuggling also commits and can be brought to trial for the offence of illegal possession, and when that occurs there is no great difficulty. But in some cases that is not so. In 1964, there were 17 cases before the courts in which it was not so; in 1965, there was one; in 1966, there were seven; and there have been two so far this year in which proceedings could be brought only under the 1952 Act.
The point which the House will also wish to bear in mind is that the anomaly can be particularly undesirable if the person brought before the courts is someone engaged in organising drug smuggling, but not actually doing it himself.


Broadly speaking, the view which we will all take is that the person who deserves perhaps sympathy more than punishment is the addict who never makes any attempt to push. The person who deserves a mixture of the two is the person who has got himself addicted, but who also, for a variety of reasons, indulges in some drug pushing. The person who deserves no sympathy at all is the person not himself addicted to drugs, but who tries to get other people addicted, pushing without suffering from the disability, if it be disability, of addiction.
It is precisely this person under the law as it stands at present who can be left out and on whom the full force of the penalties would not fall. It is, therefore, very desirable to correct this anomaly, and the new Clause endeavours to do precisely that.
Subsection (1) puts in the new penalty. Subsection (2) makes a consequential Amendment to Section 283(2,a) of the 1952 Act so as to provide that any offence relating to a drug punishable under that Act with the new penalty of imprisonment of a term longer than two years shall continue to be punishable either on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment.
Independently of the question raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), there is a unanimity of view in the House that dangerous drugs, hard drugs in particular, are an immense menace to society and to individuals. We should not see the problem out of proportion. Our number of addicts in this country is still relatively limited, but it has been rising too fast. It is still a small problem. The number of heroin addicts in the City of New York alone is more than 30 times that of the number of heroin addicts in the whole of the United Kingdom. None the less, the rate of increase in addiction in this country has been disturbing and the Government are resolved—this is why we brought the Bill forward and this is why we have strengthened it in another place—to take all steps which can be shown to be necessary to deal with this problem. It should not be exaggerated and it should not be seen out of proportion, but it is none the less a real problem which can be destructive of personality for certain people.

Mr. Deedes: We certainly see the need for this Amendment and accept it. It provides, unusually, a fivefold increase in the sentence which can now be given, but it is an anomaly but subject to anything that my hon. Friends have to say, we accept the Amendment.
I am very glad to see this. There is a certain amount of disquieting evidence that smuggling is on the increase. It seems possible, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman had to propose earlier in our proceedings that smuggling may very well become a much more profitable enterprise. This is possibly inevitable.
Since this is under Customs and Excise, I hope that the staff that will be needed in connection with this will be given serious consideration. This is the most difficult of all functions for Customs and Excisemen to fulfil, as opposed to other forms of smuggling. It is no good providing swingeing penalties unless we put ourselves in a position to deal with those operating on this basis. We have had a warning from a number of cases which have arisen recently that this sort of traffic is not on the decrease, and the particular instance that the Home Secretary has in mind remains very relevant.

Mr. Antony Buck: Anyone who has visited Hong Kong and been to the Narcotics Headquarters can understand with even greater force how terrible is the smuggling of drugs and its consequences. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I welcome this dramatic increase in penalty, and I hope that it will drive home to those who might be contemplating getting in on a smuggling racket that it is something which this House will not tolerate, and which the courts will not tolerate. I hope that they will realise that they will be liable to the most dire penalties.
What my right hon. Friend has said seems to be absolutely sound sense. There is a possibility that there would be an increase in drug trafficking if it were not for the increase in penalty. One sees in Hong Kong the lengths to which the smugglers go to evade detection. There have been some dramatic hauls and successes, but it is remarkable to see


how large quantities of heroin came in, concealed in bamboo which was being imported, and on another occasion it was brought in in the internal sides of imported refrigerators.
Unless we are very careful, this sort of smuggling might be attempted on a greater scale in this country. I hope that this new Clause, by its dramatic increase in penalty, will deter. It seems quite right that we should have this increase and the courts similarly will no doubt take note of what is Parliament's view and back up those who are trying to stop the smuggling.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I should like to add a word in support of this Amendment, because it comes very timely, when, throughout the country, there is an impression that permissiveness is gaining ground, that it should be shown that in this most serious direction permissiveness is not gaining ground, and that the seriousness of this smuggling of hard drugs is really being taken by Parliament with the seriousness which I think is proper.
On this ground, I should certainly like to voice my wholehearted support of this proposed Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Schedule.—(TRIBUNALS AND ADVISORY BODIES.)

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 6, line 18, after "the" insert "Royal".

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the last Amendment and it arises from the fact that the College of General Practitioners has now acquired the title of "Royal".

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]

DISABLED PERSONS

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I am very glad to have the opportunity in this Adjournment debate to speak for a group of people whose constant companions are pain and poverty. They are a group who endure their suffering with silence, dignity and courage. They are a section of the community whose plight has been largely neglected by the nation, men and women who live within the confines of a bedroom, a hospital ward, or a wheelchair. They are the chronic sick and disabled.
Their dreadful ordeal can be ameliorated only by skilled medical attention and the devoted care of their families. The financial hardships which most of them have to face are the direct responsibility of this House. It is a sad fact that with a few honourable exceptions, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), this House has tended to neglect the needs of that group whose plight calls for urgent and compassionate action.
It is true that the Minister of Social Security promised to examine the needs of this group. On 27th June last year, the then Minister said:
As part of our review of social security, we have under examination the needs of all chronically sick and disabled people regardless of their age, marital status, means, or position in insurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1213.]
That was a year ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) had many achievements to her credit. She was a Minister who won deserved tributes for her compassionate concern with those in need. I urge her successor, who is no less compassionate and has already impressed the House with her determination and concern, to take early action in this House. I realise that none of these problems can be solved overnight, but the time is now long overdue when my right hon. Friend the present Minister should place before the House concrete proposals to help the disabled.
The statement to which I have referred gave recognition to the chronic sick and


disabled as a special category and this in itself is a step forward. The widespread assumption that chronic sickness and severe disablement is a short term illness suddenly prolonged is fallacious and wholly invalid. There is proper provision for Service and industrial injured persons, as there should be, but not for the chronic sick and disabled, who are victims of neither war not industry. So we accept the pathetic pantomime that how, where and when a person becomes sick or disabled determines the amount that she or he receives from their country, often for the rest of their lives.
Thus we have such intolerable anomalies as people suffering multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis who are only receiving half as much as those who are disabled by industrial injuries. Their incapacity can be identical, their family responsibilities exactly the same. They can often endure the same kind of pain, but one receives only half as much as the other to meet his own and family needs.
That is quite wrong. Is it fair, is it right or civilised? Is it the kind of injustice that the nation will condone when it knows the facts? Is it the kind of anomaly that this House will tolerate? I believe not. I believe that despite the financial difficulties, which I do understand, we really must decide that the needs of all chronically sick and disabled should be provided for, irrespective of how they arose.
How big a problem is this? It is incredible that in the age of nuclear energy, space trips and computers we do now know how many chronically sick and disabled we have. I refuse to believe that the Government do not think it worth the trouble of finding out. Therefore, my first request to my right hon. Friend is that she should give the House a categorical assurance that a research project will be put in hand immediately to find out how many chronic sick and disabled we have. This could be the beginning of a systemised tabulation, so that at all times the Government know the size of the problem for which they have to make special provision.
It is important that when this research is undertaken it should not specifically exclude the chronic sick or disabled on grounds of sex. This is not a frivolous point, because, although women, at last,

have a vote in this country, no married woman working for her husband, home and family is entitled to any State benefit whatsoever in respect of disabling illness. This is an obvious hangover from the pre-Suffragette era, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will make every effort to emancipate her sex from this indefensible and objectionable anomaly.
As a woman and a compassionate Minister, I know that my right hon. Friend will readily understand my plea for a constant attendance allowance. To the chronic sick and disabled, self-sufficiency is, by definition, out of the question. They must have constant attendance which, even if it is carried out by affectionate relatives who give up their work, has an economic price. To insist that this price should be paid by the chronic sick and disabled or their families, for whatever reason, is a proposition which I do not expect to hear from a spokesman of this Government.
The main request which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend is that she should provide a basic income with special supplementary allowances to all disabled people in Britain, whatever the cause of disablement and irrespective of previous National Insurance contributions. The amount of this income should be related to the current retirement pension. The supplementary allowance should be based on the degree of disablement and the number of dependants. Such an income should be taxable, and obviously it would benefit most those with insufficient income to receive even the present small tax concessions. To qualify for this national disablement income, it should not be necessary for the qualifying person ever to have earned income. Certain people, such as the congenitally disabled, could receive the national disablement income from school-leaving age until they drew the retirement pension, although supplementary allowances would vary according to circumstances.
Sickness benefit, which was designed for short-term illness, is a quite unsuitable provision for something which is sometimes life-long, and the measures taken by the short-term invalid—such as postponing mortgage and hire purchase payments, arranging for an overdraft or a loan—are desperate and dangerous in the


case of the chronic sick. He is unable to catch up with the debts which he has created. Only a national disablement income can meet the genuine needs of the chronic sick and the disabled. It is a humane measure which will at once benefit the individual and the community.
Every chronically sick and disabled person kept out of hospital or an institution by the payment of a national disablement income would save the community money. The financial gains could be clearly calculated. But the gains in terms of enriching the lives of those who already bear a heavy burden would be incalculable. To enable thousands of afflicted men and women to live in their own homes without poverty adding insult to their injuries would be a step of which this Government could be really proud.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for not being able to get back to the Chamber in time to hear completely his speech on this most important subject. However, I am glad that it has been raised, because it seems to me—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has put this point to the House—that we have here one of those pockets of poverty in our land for which remedial action is long overdue. I have had brought to my notice within the last six months two cases in my constituency which call aloud for a general revision of the law which would make it possible for the unfortunate people who find themselves in this sort of disability to lead what one might call a human existence.
It is not entirely a question of total poverty. One case in my constituency concerns a widow who is not without means. She lives in a small house. She has to look after her son who is still at school. To be able to live at all, she has to employ not one but two women to help in doing the elementary things in looking after the house. She would be more than willing, if she were allowed to do so, to contribute her own money to the limit of her income to enable the home to be kept for her son. But it is a question of means. With everything rising in price these days, she will probably have to go to hospital and someone else will have to look after her son.
That is the type of situation—and there is a large number of similar situations in the country—which calls aloud for speedy and remedial action. The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for having taken the opportunity to raise this subject.

5.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for my short absence from the Chamber, which was unavoidable, during his speech. It is unusual for an Adjournment debate to come on so early.
I listened very carefully to the major portion of my hon. Friend's speech and to what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) said. I realise how deeply my hon. Friend feels about the plight of the disabled and the chronic sick. I know that he has vigorously projected his views on more than one occasion on this human problem both inside and outside the Chamber. I listened to him with understanding, because before I was elected to Parliament I worked in an industry which has had, over a long time, more than its share of industrially disabled. After living in my constituency in the County of Durham for the whole of my life, I have abundant personal evidence of the problems which face the severely disabled and the chronic sick. I can, therefore, assure my hon. Friend that I fully appreciate his concern about them.
My hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that provision for the disabled is not something which can be discussed coyly in terms of cash benefits. Improvement and extension of the services and facilities available to the disabled is, as my hon. Friend will recognise, at least of equal importance in enabling the disabled to live as full and happy a life as possible in the community.
My hon. Friend referred, I understand, to the need for a research project to be undertaken. I should like to draw his attention to a reply which was given at Question Time this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. My right hon. Friend was replying to a Question by the hon. Member for Moray and


Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who asked the Minister of Health
whether he has yet decided upon an inquiry into the numbers of permanently disabled persons, following studies by Bedford College, London, with a view to compiling a register of such persons in England and Wales.
My right hon. Friend replied:
Yes, Sir. The Government Social Survey will undertake next year a study of adults living at home who are substantially and permanently handicapped by limitations in their movements. The survey will show the extent to which they receive and need help from local authority services and will assist in the development of those services. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security is also keenly interested in this field, and I shall be discussing with her how far the survey can yield information of particular value to her.
My hon. Friend can, therefore, be assured that my right hon. Friend will be having consultation with the Minister of Health to obtain the information that is vitally necessary in the problem that we are discussing this afternoon. I might add that the Minister of Health will also discuss with my right hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the possibility of extending the survey to Scotland.
The main point made by my hon. Friend was to seek the establishment of a national income for all chronically sick and disabled people. Perhaps I should state the provisions which are at present made under Acts of Parliament. The basic provision for all chronically sick and severely disabled people is sickness benefit, with retirement pensions for the elderly. The basic rate of sickness benefit is being increased as from the end of this month to £4 10s. for a single person and £7 6s. for a married couple.
A man who falls sick or becomes incapable of work through disablement, once he is established in the employment field to the extent of having paid 156 contributions for weeks of work, can draw sickness benefit indefinitely until either he is able to return to work or, on reaching retirement age, his sickness benefit becomes a retirement pension, guaranteed to him by the contributions with which he has been credited during his years of sickness benefit.
Where the resources of a disabled person who is incapable of work fall short of his requirements, supplementary benefit is available and is payable as of

right. To the basic rates of supplementary benefit, which at the end of the month will become £4 6s. for a single person, and £7 1s. for a married couple, there are added an allowance for rent, which may be the full cost, and rates, and a long-term addition of 9s. for supplementary pensioners and for those who have been drawing a supplementary allowance or National Assistance for two years or more. There may be further additions to meet substantial extra expenditure resulting from disablement.
Neither sickness nor supplementary benefit can be paid under the present system to a disabled housewife in her own right. In times of sickness, as when she is well, the housewife normally relies on her husband's earnings. If he falls sick, his sickness benefit is increased for her. If he also needs supplementary benefit, her requirements are taken into account in assessing the payment to which he is entitled.
I now come to a comparison with the industrially injured and war pensioners. The special risks of service in industry and the conditions to which people are compulsorily exposed in the national interest during a war have been held to justify special provision for these special categories. Whatever argument there may be about the appropriate provision for other disabled people, the Government believe that there would be very strong opposition to any suggestion that preference for the industrially and war disabled was wrong. Indeed, this preference is common to all countries which have social security schemes.
I might also add that the financial comparison is not as extreme as is sometimes alleged. For example, a chronically sick man with a wife and two children will not be expected to live on the basic £9 8s. which he will have from the end of this month by way of sickness benefit. The assessment of his requirements for supplementary benefit purposes will be £10 17s., to which rent and rates will be added, an addition of probably at least £1 10s. a week. There may be, as well, further additions for special expenses.
Only a minority of the war and industrially disabled are 100 per cent. disabled and qualify for full pension and allowances. Five thousand people are currently receiving industrial


injuries disablement pensions at the 100 per cent. rate. Of these, less than 2,000 are getting constant attendance allowance. Only a few hundred get the allowance at the maximum rate, which, as the Industrial Injuries Act makes clear, is intended only for exceptionally severe disablement.
There is a fundamental difference between what can and should be done by way of special and limited schemes for special categories and what can and should be done for disabled people in the population at large. Nevertheless, it may be that in course of time features of the special schemes will prove suitable for adoption to a wider field. This possibility is certainly being kept in mind.
As my hon. Friend knows, Ministers involved in this problem have made it clear on a number of occasions since we took office that there are many priority tasks yet to be undertaken by the Government. I assure my hon. Friend that provision for the chronically sick and disabled is one of our priorities. He will, I know, readily recognise that it is not possible to solve all the problems in this direction at one time, but I assure him once again that the Government will tackle each problem as speedily as possible.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: There is a distinct advantage in having put dangerous drugs behind us early; the only difficulty it has put us in is that this debate came on somewhat sooner than we had all anticipated. I apologise to the hon. Member for Stoke-on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has brought up this most important subject, that, as was so with others, I was elsewhere when he began to do so and came into the Chamber only as he was concluding what he had to say. Thanks to one of our Liberal colleagues who has now left the Chamber I obtained a rapid report of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South had said, and knowing, I thought, what it was likely he was going to say, I found that that accorded with what I found he had in fact said—if I may become rather cryptic in the matter.
I want first of all to agree with the Minister in this, that I do not think it harms his case but I think it of import-

ance to recognise that most of those who are the war disabled and most of those who are the industrially disabled regard themselves as being a special category.
In so far as I have any interest to declare, I am a member of the executive of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. I am not their usual spokesman in the House; I think it is better, perhaps, to have somebody who is not a war disabled person. However, I must say, not speaking for myself, that those who are war disabled, the generality of them in the country, feel that, coming as they do under the Royal Warrant, they ought, by virtue of the injuries which they suffered in time of war, be treated as a special case, and I pay tribute to successive Governments for having done so.
It has been a long and very often an uphill fight to get the right allowances. It is, of course, true that those few of the war disabled men who are in the 100 per cent. category get a variety of allowances which are of the very greatest value and enable them to lead a reasonable life. That is the least we can do for those who are war disabled. Of course, the overwhelming majority are not. They are 50 per cent., 60 per cent., 70 per cent. disabled, and very few of them require any constant attention or other allowances—certainly till they become aged.
I remember being closely involved some years ago now in the battle with the then Tory Government to get the allowance specifically increased for those who were over 65 who would feel the greater burden of being limbless. One notices those injuries more as one gets older and they cause more trouble than they did before. That is undoubtedly true. Because of the evidence which some of us gave, we were able in this country to set a precedent which existed nowhere else in the world and to give a special additional allowance to the disabled aged 65 and over. The industrially disabled, too, many of them—for example, those in the trade the Minister was referring to, the miners—very often suffer from special diseases contracted by the very nature of their work. Those people feel that society owes them a greater debt because they may suffer from pneumoconiosis or may have suffered in the old days from some chest disease brought


on by the very nature of the work which they did.
I do not think that we ought to erode the principle either in the case of the war disabled or in the case of those industrially disabled. But that does not mean that when we consider those who suffer from polio or who suffer—shall we say? —from legs which are completely useless from one of a number of incurable diseases, we should not recognise that there are those classes of people who through no fault of their own are unable to work in the way a normal person can do. They are, of course, in a chronic position; that is to say, they are in the same position physically as many of those who are industrially disabled or war disabled. I certinly would have no objection.
I feel sure that the limbless ex-Servicemen for whom I think I can speak—although I am not speaking officially for them I think I know a good many of them sufficiently well to say that I can reasonably speak for them—would not feel it wrong if those who are chronically sick and disabled from other causes were entitled to receive some regular form of emolument or attendance allowance along rather similar lines to that which they receive. I think that that must be investigated. I think there is a case for saying that they should perhaps not receive as much as those who suffer either from war or special disablement, who should get a rather higher benefit, or a more easy benefit; but that is not to say that the others ought to be deprived.
What is the position? I happen to have in my constituency, in the Isle of Thanet, probably more aged people and also a good many more sick people than are to be found in the great majority of other constituencies. I have a very large number of those who are resident in various hospitals and homes, varying from the famous Royal Sea Bathing Hospital to other hospitals and institutions both geriatric and otherwise. Some of them suffer from diseases which render their limbs useless for any effective work. Indeed, the so-called figures of unemployment hide the fact that a number of people are wholly unemployed because of their chronic sickness. They have come to Thanet because of the healthy, good air at Broadstairs and Margate—better than anywhere else.
Hitherto the Ministry of Social Security has sent particularly able men to handle matters in Thanet, because there are so many cases there. We get some of the very best of the civil servants. This is well known. They assess these cases. Fortunately, they do it very well, but, of course, it is a particular assessment in each case. There is no entitlement or right to any of those people who are chronically sick to get 2½d. next week by virtue of it; they can get only the allowance of the day.
I imagine that what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was trying to get was some form of—I would not say exactly, a pension—a right to a continuing payment arising out of a person's illness if it is chronic. That is the issue, is it not? I think that on the whole this is right. Once it has been established that a person is chronically sick, instead of having a system where he claims £4 6s. a week plus an addition for the family if need be and an amount for rates which they have helped to pay, so that we arrive at a figure which is purely, if I may say so, an old benefit figure—that is to say, based upon the fact that a person is incapable, which is rather like a dole—I think we ought to be working towards the day when those who are chronically sick should receive a benefit based upon a straight right, plus an additional amount to take into account constant attendance which they need and the need for certain necessities which have to be administered to them.
This problem has another facet to it. It is the problem that so many of these people are in homes. They are either in homes of the Greater London Council or of the Kent County Council, or they are in private homes which are, of course, subsidised by the county and by the ratepayers. Most of those who are chronically sick are in homes of this kind and we do not see what the problem is because what is paid for is their board and lodgings; and they are permitted in effect to keep 16s. 6d. pocket money a week.
It seems to me that on the whole if people ought to go into a home, for which the public are going to pay through the Kent County Council, or other county councils in other parts of the country, we should deal with them as though they are drawing pension, but which should be


paid to the home, and they should draw pocket money. Therefore, I find no great fault in that system.
Where they do not go into homes of that kind which are subsidised, I should prefer to see them receive a basic rate plus a services amount to take into account their particular needs, which are obviously much greater than those of other persons. It may be that such a person needs someone to dress him. It may be essential that he has someone to accompany him when he goes out. It may be that he can drive a car but needs an allowance towards the cost of petrol. I should much prefer it if such matters could be settled through the Ministry of Social Security which would decide on the amount of payment for 12 months, subject to review, without its becoming a positive entitlement to a pension. It might be better if it could be fixed in that way and we tried to bring the chronic sick into line with the war disabled and industrially disabled.

Mr. More: In the case of disabled or chronic sick people now living in their own homes and faced with the alternative of going into a publicly supported institution, not only would it be better from their point of view but it would save the taxpayers' money if they were given sufficient provision to enable them to remain in their homes rather than throw themselves upon public assistance.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend has hit upon an admirable point. He has hit the nail on the head, for two reasons. By giving such people the knowledge that they will receive this additional money over a period of twelve months, greater public money will be saved. At the moment, they feel that they have to go into homes to receive their full entitlement. However, there is another reason, and it is a human one. Psychologically, I should much prefer that those who can

get about on their own should get about on their own and work on their own account to the extent that they can for the sake of their own mental health and happiness, rather than go into a home where it may be that they will tend to give up. For both those psychological and financial reasons, it is far better for this to be regarded as an entitlement and one which should have long-term considerations.
When I came into the Chamber earlier, it contained the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and a lately arrived Minister. I see now a number of "eager beavers" sitting on the benches opposite who obviously have been hatching up a tremendous plot. They are ready for a big rage, and I can see them whispering among themselves. Indeed, I can almost hear them saying that the only time that they have been delighted to hear me speaking was today, since it has given them time to think of what they want to say. However, it is a good way to end an old Session to know that, for once, one's colleagues on the Government benches are delighted that one should make a speech.
I feel that there are serious pockets of poor, including the chronic sick and the disabled, for whom the Government have done little or nothing over the past three years. By today's standards, they were given very good treatment up to that time. We look to the Government now to ensure that they catch up fairly fast and to see that the small pockets of chronic sick and disabled are looked after properly in the future along lines of approach which encourage them to remain in their own homes in the knowledge that, once they know that they are chronically sick and disabled, they will be given the opportunity to make such contribution as they can in their homes with the assistance that they need.

VIETNAMESE STUDENTS (ADMISSION)

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: It is important that this House should not adjourn before a matter has been raised which is cardinal to the history of the House and the views in which all sides are united in upholding.
It is a matter which concerns the Home Office. I must apologise for the shortness of the notice given to the Home Office Minister, but notice has been given, and I hope that he will join us before too long—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It might be convenient to remind the House that, on a Motion for the Adjournment, any hon. Member is entitled to raise any matter which does not involve legislation. However, there is a convention which Mr. Speaker and his predecessors have mentioned that no matter other than that indicated on the Order Paper ought with propriety to be raised unless notice has been given to the Minister responsible. It is obviously inconvenient to the House that there should be a debate on an entirely new matter without the Minister responsible for answering it having an opportunity of being present. In the present case, I understand that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has notified the Home Office of his intention to raise this matter.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we pass to it, I understand that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is proposing to raise an entirely new topic not within the terms of reference of the preceding debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood from his opening remarks that the hon. Gentleman was proposing to refer to a new matter, which would be in order when debating a Motion for the Adjournment, since anything is in order which does not involve legislation. Mr. Speaker and his precessors have deprecated new matters being introduced unless the Minister responsible has been notified in advance.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any rule by which the Opposition might be informed in advance if that happened? If not, a position might arise where an hon. Member goes out of the Chamber, seeks out the Minister and gives him notice of his intention, saying, "I shall be starting in five minutes". In that event, no other hon. Member has an opportunity of knowing, unless he happens to be sitting in the Chamber. In the present case, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and I now have notice, but, for all I know, there are those on the Opposition Front Bench who have some general interest in the matter to be discussed. I notice that one Opposition Whip is present now, and no doubt he can warn those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who may be interested, but it would be preferable if they could be given some notice of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has raised a valid point. To the best of my knowledge, it is one which has not previously been raised. It has not been suggested previously that an hon. Member who proposes to raise a new matter on the Adjournment should give notice both to the Minister involved and to the Opposition Chief Whip. If time permitted, it is a convention which might be usefully observed to the convenience of the House.

Mr. Whitaker: Thank you for that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The issue which I intend to raise is one concerning the freedom of expression in Britain, which I trust will commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House irrespective of Party.
The incident out of which this matter arises is the refusal last week of the Home Office to allow the admission to this country, except for a few hours, of three students from North Vietnam. That this was not an isolated or accidental decision was confirmed by the Home Office, who said that it was a policy matter arrived at after consultation with the Foreign Office. I have too much respect for all the Ministers at the Home Office to believe that they endorse or agree with the decision. There is no doubt that it emanates solely from the Foreign Office


and, if a Foreign Office Minister is unable to be present, I hope that he will read the report of the forthcoming debate.
This decision by the Foreign Office is all the more lamentable because when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was Foreign Secretary, he said, during a famous teach-in at Oxford on the subject of Vietnam, that this country, unlike certain Communist ones, had the proud tradition that we allowed freedom of expression on all viewpoints to be put in this country. This is a valid point, and I wish that the Foreign Office, by its subsequent policy, had adhered to that position. I should like to know whether the present Foreign Secretary endorses the policy set oat by his predecessor, and whether he will in future exercise it.
One reason why people in this country, irrespective of party, prefer to live in a social democracy as opposed to living in a totalitarian State is that we have this freedom of expression, no matter how much we dissent from whatever is said. Whatever one's views on Vietnam, one welcomes the fact that in this country people are allowed to debate vigorously what is perhaps the most important crisis in the international situation.
Ours is an old historical tradition. People sometimes think of the 19th century as being less tolerant, but during that century we allowed in dissenting rebels such as Mazzini and Garibaldi, and Lenin from Russia. Even Ho Chi Minh was allowed in, provided he was only a waiter in a London hotel. More recently, on this issue of the civil war in Vietnam, we have allowed in spokes- men of the Saigon Government, and people from the United States, who have expressed opinions both for and against their Government's policies in Vietnam. I welcome the fact that emissaries from Saigon and the Pentagon have come here. I enjoy listening to their arguments. I am not convinced by them, but I hope that in return they will listen to other arguments, and possibly find that there is more than one view to be put forward.
I find this decision by the Foreign Office inexplicable and indefensible. It is inexplicable, coming as it does a week

after the decision taken on the question of Vietnam at the conference of the party of which this Government is formed, but it is even more inexplicable when one remembers that the Foreign Secretary has said time and again that this country is allegedly impartial in the conflict of Vietnam.
The Foreign Office cannot have very much confidence in its policy on Vietnam if it feels that it is liable to be exploded by the presence of three young students from Vietnam if they were allowed to participate in a conference at the London School of Economics. On the contrary, if the Foreign Office believes in its present lamentable policy for South-East Asia, one would expect it to welcome the chance of having in this country three National Liberation Front members to whom our Government's policy could be explained, in the hope of converting them, and in the hope, too, that they would take back to their country what was said here.
Vietnam is a tragedy, and this is not the time nor the place to enter into a discussion of this complicated and grave situation, but I think that everyone in this Chamber would gladly accept the principle that the exchanging of views on this issue is one of the best means of finding a way to peace.
I find it intolerable to be a Member of Parliament in a country in which the Foreign Office apparently intends to exercise the right of dictating to whom we shall and shall not be allowed to listen. It is significant that these three students came here from Canada where they have been allowed to address several meetings during their fortnight's stay. Why should Great Britain, with her great traditions of liberty, be any less liberal in this matter than Canada has been?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend could also ask why the Canadians were allowed to listen to them, and we are not.

Mr. Whitaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This may have something to do with the fact that Canada's standing at the United Nations is, unfortunately, considerably higher than this country's. The Canadian Government exercise an independence of foreign policy, not only on Vietnam, but on many


other issues, which is earning them respect at the United Nations. But I would in any event argue that the lamentable attitude of the Foreign Office of adopting an ostrich-like attitude, with its head in the sand, is counter-productive. We cannot exclude opinions by keeping people out of the country. Ideas have a way of coming in unless we impose a total censorship in the way that the Greek junta or Mr. Ian Smith prefer. The Foreign Office's policy is not only criminal, but ineffective.
I do not intend to make a long speech, because many of my colleagues wish to express their views, but I ask that the Foreign Office, if possible through the Home Office Minister, whom I am glad to see here, and to whom I apologise for not giving fuller notice, will undertake to repudiate the policy that it is pursuing now, and return to Britain's traditional policy of freedom of expression on this or any other matter.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) I was surprised to see the Government, through the Home Office, or the Foreign Office, adopt this attitude towards these students from Vietnam. It seemed to me to show a great deal of moral cowardice. We are allowed to hear the American case for intervention in Vietnam, but students at the London School of Economics are not allowed to hear students putting the case for North Vietnam.
I do not think that these students should be regarded as dangerous enemies and not be allowed to enter this country. I say that because far more capable opponents of the American policy are allowed into this country to criticise their Government. I think that an unanswerable case against American policy in Vietnam was put by George Brown at the Scarborough conference. I am referring not to the Foreign Secretary, but to the George Brown, a representative of one of the districts of California, who has courageously opposed the American Government's attitude on Vietnam. Why did not the Foreign Office say, "This man George Brown is likely to discredit the American Government's view"? Surely an American who comes

here, and especially an American with the status of a Member of Congress, carries far more weight in this country than do any students from Vietnam? I think that it is an act of moral cowardice by the Government to say, "We are afraid to interfere with a Congressman from Washington, but we will put a ban on these students".
The American Government know the attitude which George Brown has taken. They know that he has criticised them, but they nevertheless allow him to come here. They allowed an opponent of their Vietnam policy to come to this country, and the Foreign Office allowed him to come in. Indeed, he was welcomed by our George Brown.
I saw the two George Browns in earnest conversation at Scarborough. I do not know whether the George Brown has converted the Foreign Secretary. He had every facility, and it would have been a triumph on the part of the American Congressman if he had succeeded in persuading his namesake in this country to adopt an attitude towards American policy a little less subservient than that of the present Government.
More than that; George Brown from California was allowed, on one of the most popular features in television"24 Hours"—to express clearly his point of view about American policy in Vietnam. Why, then, did not the Government pursue this policy to its logical conclusion and prevent the entry into this country of the most formidable propagandist of two continents about the policy of his Government in respect of Vietnam? I do not know the answer.
Let us carry the matter a step further. The American Government are more liberal than ours. I understand that they issued visas to half a dozen Members of Parliament to enter the United States. Several of those Members are here tonight. The Americans did not say, "We will put a ban on these British Labour M.P.s because they are opposed to the Government's policy on Vietnam." They were welcomed in America. They made a considerable impact on American opinion, through the American wireless. They addressed all kinds of conferences and put very strongly what I would call liberal opinion in this country towards


the Vietnam war. The Government are less liberal than the present Government of the United States of America.
How can we stop people in this country from hearing the other side of the Vietnam argument? People here listen to the wireless of other countries. If they listen to news bulletins from Communist countries they will hear incessantly the expression of the other point of view about Vietnam. I do not believe that any attempt is to be made to confiscate our wireless sets, in case we hear the other side of the argument about Vietnam. But the Home Office say, "We will prevent the students of the London School of Economics hearing the case put up by the students from Vietnam." This news has gone round the world. Every liberal-minded person in every country is asking why a British Labour Government—it is not supposed to be a Tory Government; it is a Labour Government—should seek to prevent free speech about the most momentous issue in the world today, the Vietnam war. I cannot understand it.
When I was in Japan recently the most persistent question I was asked was: what do the Labour Government mean by taking up this completely subservient and servile attitude towards American policy in Vietnam? This is a contemptible action on the part of the Government—more contemptible in that it comes from a Government whose own Labour Party conference decided against this policy. Nevertheless, the Government say, "The London School of Economics must not hear these students in case they persuade any section of the British public."

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend will remember—since he heard the "Panorama" broadcast in which the students were supposed to speak—the announcement made on television that the students were about to be placed on an aeroplane for Prague and that the television operators were accompanying them and would broadcast a statement by them from the aeroplane. Nobody has heard anything more of the incident on television, radio or any other medium. Would my hon. Friend care to inquire of the Foreign Secretary or the Home Office what inhibitions were placed in the way

of television operators from interviewing the students?

Mr. Hughes: That is a very important observation. I saw the "Panorama" programme and on it we were informed that the television people followed these students to Prague. Perhaps some explanation can be given whether any pressure was placed upon the B.B.C. I hope not. But if pressure has not been placed upon the B.B.C., and if the B.B.C. is allowed to have on its programmes many propagandists—exceedingly evil propagandists—on the subject of Vietnam, I fail to see why a ban should be placed on these students. I can think of only one explanation—sheer political cowardice and a fear of hearing the other point of view, a point of view which is shared by the great majority of the people of the world.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question at the earliest possible opportunity in order to show that some people in this House of Commons strongly oppose the policy of the Home Office and Foreign Office in this instance, and call for its reversal, believing that we have a great tradition in this country. We have allowed into this country people who were afterwards considered to be the most dangerous in the world. We allowed Karl Marx, Lenin, and a whole generation of Russian refugees to come in, but now we can only say, with great regret, that under a Labour Government this mean little action has been perpetrated, although there is no logical excuse For it and it does not have the support of thoughtful people in this country.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I support my hon. Friend in what I hope will be a very brief speech. Yesterday we saw action throughout the world—magnificent demonstrations in the United States and in European countries, including our own—showing that the people are moving decisely against the war in Vietnam. For some reason beyond my understanding our Government have refused visas for these students. The fact that a person has a political point of view which is opposed to that of the Government or the British people is no reason to stop him or anybody else coming into the country. We have a record of upholding freedom and the right of people


to put their points of view. I should like to quote the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary at the famous Oxford teach-in on 29th June, 1965:
Mr. Chairman, I am very glad indeed to be here at this teach-in tonight. It seems to me an excellent thing that students should have the opportunity of having access to news, information and comment from all over the world, that they should be able, in the light of that, to form their own opinions and to express those opinions freely.
Why, then, do the Government not allow this? Why are they afraid that students from North Vietnam are so dangerous that neither the Government nor anyone else would have an answer to the opinions which they might express here?
The Government, I think, are afraid of upsetting the Americans, once again, by standing up to them and admitting the students. The Americans themselves are getting a great deal of information and discussion in their own country. I was recently in the United States with some of my hon. Friends. We were known to be violently opposed to the Vietnam war and to our own Government's policy, but that did not prevent us from meeting everyone we wanted to meet, including the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, to discuss this issue.
This is an extremely short-sighted attitude by the Home Office, I believe at the instigation of the Foreign Office, and an unfortunate blot on the otherwise very good record of our liberal Home Secretary. We ought to tell the British people. The Government have no excuse, because the Labour Party's policy is for disassociation from the American policy in Vietnam, and we should follow this through and show our independence by allowing in people of differing political persuasions. I thought that that was what democracy was all about.
I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has to say about this. He had much to say about freedom and democracy in Brighton last week and was taken to task about it in one issue of The Times. I want to know where he stands on this issue, and where the Opposition generally stand. Their record on the Vietnam war is not creditable at all.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter. It might be a question of

dealing with individuals, but wars are fought by individuals. The problem of the freedom of individuals to say what they think is a basic tenet of what we stand for. Whether we agree with them or not, these students should have been allowed in and permitted to talk to students at the London School of Economics or elsewhere and the students or the British people allowed to judge for themselves. I am under no illusion about where they stand: I believe that they are opposed to the Vietnam war and that they have said so clearly.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have spoken to the students in question and asked them to tell me what they would have said if allowed to come here and say it. I heard that the students would not be admitted only the night before they arrived and when I telephoned my hon. Friend, whose presence on the Front Bench I welcome, since I could scarcely believe it, he told me that the decision was made and that there was nothing that I could do about it. I told him that I intended to see the students, and although I cannot say that he welcomed that decision, he accepted it. The following morning I met the students at London Airport. Having seen a report in the paper that no recording of what they said would be allowed, I naturally took my tape recorder with me.
I was allowed to meet the three students and took a tape recording of what they said. There were two men and a girl between 20 and 25. I asked the man who was clearly their leader what he would have said if allowed in to say it. This is on record and if hon. Members wish to hear it I would be happy to bring this recording to a Committee Room so that they can. The students are not involved personally in the battle in Vietnam, nor are they leading politicians and therefore what they had to say was simple, straightforward and not Machiavellian at all.
It was something which should have been heard in the House and I hope that some hon. Members will decide to come along and hear it for themselves. The leader said, in a nutshell, "I would have said that the people of Vietnam only want peace, only want freedom, only want to live their own lives without interference from people from other countries." Is


this a very devastating and explosive statement which must not be made in this country in case it subverted our own students? Is it not a proposition of some general value, a simple and straightforward statement? What harm could possibly have been done by allowing them in to say that and the other things which they would have said?
I then asked the others if they wished to add anything and one said, "I would have wished to bring to the students of this country an expression of the feelings of the students of Vietnam, an appreciation of the understanding which we believe students throughout the world have of the nature of the struggle in Vietnam." These are not the exact words, but, as I have said, hon. Members could have an opportunity to hear the words if they wish.
These are simple statements. What earthly reason could there have been for placing us in the invidious position of having to tell these students, "I am sorry but my Government think that you are too dangerous to be allowed in." None of us should have been placed in this position.
An interesting fact is that I do not believe that any support has been given hardly anywhere for the Government's policy in this matter. One exception is a journalist named Levin who is renowned I think for the vigour rather than for the balance of his opinions, who expressed the view not only that it was right to keep the Vietnamese students out but asked whether the people of Vietnam would have allowed students from this country opposed to their policy to be seen there.
Of course, under pressure of war, the answer is, no, they would not. But supposing that this were not allowed on any occasion. Is this not what the war is supposed to be about? Are we not fighting for freedom of expression of opinion? Therefore, what are we doing if we say that, because British students opposed to Hanoi policy would not be allowed in North Vietnam, we will adopt these limiting standards in our own country? What the Americans are supposed to be doing in Vietnam—I sometimes wonder what they are doing—is fighting for freedom of speech, the very

thing which our own liberal Home Secretary has denied to these students. In other words, we have sold the pass which the Americans are supposed to be defending in that distant country.
Was this decision taken by the Home Office of its own free will and choice; taken by the present liberal Home Secretary? Or, as has been reported in the Press, was the decision taken not by the Home Office but by the Foreign Office? Did the Home Secretary agree to act as the agent of the Foreign Office in following this disgraceful policy? Has the Home Secretary chosen to place himself in a subservient position in this sort of matter to the Foreign Office and Foreign Secretary?
One of the students said he hoped that it would be possible for not merely a passing delegation but for a special delegation to be sent from Vietnam to pay a proper visit to Britain. I said that I could not but feel that the present situation arose from an aberration and that if an opportunity occurred I would raise the matter in Parliament and try to obtain an assurance from the Government that this disgraceful business would not be allowed to recur. I said that I hoped that we could restore the traditional liberty of the people of Britain to hear any and every point of view expressed, whether or not we agree with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has done a service in giving us this opportunity to debate this matter. I trust that, when replying, the Under-Secretary will provide two assurances: first, that this is not the permanent policy of the Home Office and, secondly, that if a proper application is made on another occasion for a student delegation to come here, either from North or South Vietnam, permission will be granted.
In this case the students came not from North but from South Vietnam. They were not from Hanoi, but from the National Liberation Front. One came from the Mekong Delta and another from a place not far from Saigon. They came from areas which are nominally under the regime in Saigon, a regime which these students do not regard as the legitimate Government there. They regard the Saigon regime as having imposed itself on the country by false elections.
If hon. Members had an opportunity to hear their views they might disagree with them. Is that any reason why students such as these should not be allowed in? Why could not they have talked to us and have been questioned by us, as they might have been questioned by students of the London School of Economics? This has been a disgraceful episode which, I trust, will not be repeated.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Most of the important points that need to be raised when this subject is discussed have already been raised. I will therefore not delay the House for long. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is to be congratulated initiating this debate, which is concerned with an issue of vital importance to the democratic character of this State.
I understood that the main argument used against these three students coming here was a simple one; that their visit would not be in the best interests of this country. That phrase can, naturally, hide a series of other arguments, although we may never know what they were. In any case what are "the best interests of this country"?
I recall attending a meeting in this building at which Mr. Goldberg, a representative of the American Government, explained in great detail American policy on Vietnam. Some people might have thought that his remarks were not in the best interests of this country. Nevertheless, we had the opportunity of hearing him and later we asked him questions. His remarks were widely publicised in the British Press and I believe that he also appeared on television.
Then we were visited by the American Vice-President. He, too, spoke to us and was questioned by us on American Vietnam policy. There was, of course, a slight difference of opinion between some of my hon. Friends and me and this great American leader. Nevertheless, we had an opportunity to hear the American case from the second most important political figure in America.
Some of my hon. Friends and I, as well as others who disagree with the policy of the United States towards Viet-

nam, were asked to arrange a meeting with another representative of the American Government. Downstairs in this building, almost in the dungeons, we organised such a meeting and had a discussion on the subject. There was greater understanding of the American position on Vietnam after those three meetings than existed before, because we at least had an opportunity of hearing the case put by leading American politicians and of asking them questions. After those meetings we knew precisely where they stood. We nevertheless did not accept their case, although we might have been convinced of its rightness on the basis of the arguments they adduced. However, we were not.
Contrast those opportunities given to us to hear and question leading American politicians with the treatment meted out to these three Vietnam students. It is not in the best interests of this country that we should hear three students, we were told. Instead of the high-powered arguments which these leading American politicians were able to give us, these students would have put forward an unsophisticated case and we could have questioned them on the subject.
We in Britain have a great tradition of freedom and democracy. We did not come by it easily. We have always had to fight for our rights, and such rights as we have were never given to us on a plate. In years gone by people were transported, imprisoned and even hanged in their quest for freedom so that our people might speak freely and express their points of view. It has also been our tradition that outcasts from other countries may come here and live in peace, even if the majority of us may violently disagree with their policies and views.
Now possibly the most liberal Home Secretary we have had this century has taken a decision which is not in keeping with that tradition. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) asked whether it was my right hon. Friend's decision and a decision of the Home Office or whether that Department was subjected to pressure from the Foreign Office. I, too, would like to know the answer to that question and precisely whose decision it was. I can hardly believe that the present Home Secretary, who has shown such a liberal attitude in other matters, who has invited


liberal ideas and who has supported liberal legislation, could have arrived at such a decision off his own bat.
As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, we cannot have double standards. It is no argument at all to say: "What about our students going to North Vietnam? What about our students going to the East European countries?" As a matter of fact, a lot of our students do go to the Eastern European countries and some of them still get themselves into a bit of difficulty when they are there.
I defend the right of our students to go to those countries and speak plainly, and I have on many occasions protested most vigorously against actions taken against our students in the East European countries. I protested about the imprisonment of Djilas, and I protested about the imprisonment of someone else in Yugoslavia because he had tried to start a new Socialist movement. We cannot have double standards. If it is right for us to protest about what happens in some East European countries and elsewhere, it is also right for us to say that other people have a right to come here and express their opinions freely, whether we agree with them or not.
Let us, therefore, get rid of these double standards and go back to our tradition of allowing people to come here, express their opinions and explain their position. If we do not accept their views, we do not need to, but we must know their case in the same way as we know the case of the Americans. Daily, monthly and yearly we are bombarded with Press reports and with speeches from America expressing the American point of view. Three simple students were kept out, and it is a disgrace. I ask the Government even at this late stage to look at the matter again and to let these three people have an opportunity to put their case before the British people.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I welcome this debate, which has come about through the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker). I am very pleased that it has been possible on our first day back after the Summer Recess to debate this matter. There is no doubt, as other hon. Members have pointed out—all, by the way,

from this side of the House—that the refusal by the Home Office to allow these students in has caused a great deal of anger amongst many people in this country.
I cannot understand why they were not allowed in. Some hon. Members have asked whether it was the action of the Home Office or of the Foreign Secretary. My fear is that there is increasing pressure on us from the State Department in Washington not to allow anyone into this country from either North Vietnam or that section of South Vietnam that is controlled by the Communists. If that is the case, it is a very humiliating position for us to be in. Hon. Members have spoken of our great liberal tradition, and it is a genuine tradition, but are we now in a position in which we have to take orders from Washington about the type of people we allow into the country?
What is also so humiliating is that there are many people in America itself who are opposed to Johnson's war; very many people who want de-escalation and a settlement with North Vietnam. Then they look at us, with a Socialist Government, and find that the Socialist Government are giving all support to L.B.J. I have been told by some Americans—I do not know how true it is—that when critics in the United States turn round on Johnson, he says: "The Socialist Government in Britain support me." It is not a very nice position for us to be in. These students should be allowed to enter Britain.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to something that has arisen more or less only today, as it may help to explain why the students were not allowed to enter the country in the first place. We have had today a newspaper report that British naval personnel have been directly involved on the American side in the Vietnam war. Time and again when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been asked about this we have had the clear-cut answer that British Army, Navy and Royal Air Force personnel were not involved in the war at all. The Evening Standard tonight reports that naval personnel have been directly involved.
This is a very serious matter, and one which a number of us will seek to raise as soon as possible with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, but is it a


fact that we have refused to allow in the students because we are committed actively on the American side in Vietnam? This is a very serious matter, and I hope that the Government will tell us as soon as possible whether or not that report in the Evening Standard is true.
The Labour Party conference demanded that we should dissociate Britain from the American war. Had the delegates to that conference known that we were actively engaged in the war there would have been even more anger at Scarborough a few weeks ago. If this report is true, it may explain why the students were not allowed in.
During the eighteen months that I have been in this House I have never concealed my views about the war. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) indulges in a little giggle, but it is no credit to the Tory Members that they are so silent on this issue and do not seem to have a conscience about the bloodshed and suffering that is taking place in Vietnam. I believe that the Americans are fighting a dirty, colonial war, and a war which brings the United States no credit at all. I am in favour of the policy, now the official Labour policy, of dissociating ourselves from what the Americans are doing.
I also believe it to be extremely important that if we are to hear one side of the argument we in Britain should also be allowed to hear the other side from those directly involved in Vietnam. After all, North Vietnam exists—it has not been bombed out of existence—and there is a section of South Vietnam that is controlled by Communists. Why should we not hear those people? If we like to play this neutral rôle in Vietnam of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, how necessary it is to understand how the other side want to bring about a settlement. Let those from areas controlled by the National Liberation Front give us their view. I would add that some of us are fed up with hearing the American point of view put forward by the Foreign Secretary at Question Time.
I am glad that we have had this debate and the opportunity of showing our anger and disgust at the refusal of the Home Office to allow these students to enter the

country. I hope that next time students apply to come in there will be none of this nonsense, but that they will be allowed in from North Vietnam or from areas of South Vietnam controlled by Communists, and that we shall be able to hear their point of view in open debate.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has done a real service to the House and to the right of free speech in raising this present issue. The case he has put, and the case put by other hon. Members in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—is conclusive, so I will confine myself to a few practical observations which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to take into account when he replies to this debate.
I know—we all know—that my hon. Friend is present as representative of his office, speaking on behalf of his right hon. Friend, so I want to confine the matter precisely to the particular responsibilities of his office in this connection. One cannot expect him to go very much wider than that, and it is no part of my task or that of any of my hon. Friends in this debate to make the Under-Secretary's life more difficult than it is.
What is involved here is a matter of fundamental importance and of practical wisdom. My hon. Friend knows that these three students arrived here from Canada. Not very long ago, I was in Toronto at a symposium on the Far East organised by the University of Toronto. The presiding officer at the symposium was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Toronto. Nowhere is there an atmosphere closer to the atmosphere of academic freedom in this country than in the University of Toronto. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), who has been there, will know that one feels almost at home when one walks into the senior common room or meets the students.
At this symposium I was deeply impressed by the way in which Canadian thinking on the war in Vietnam has developed. Not only the Labour Party in Canada, but the vast majority of those in public life in Canada cannot understand why our Government are giving


such full support to the United States Government in their Vietnam policy.
The matter we are discussing is much more limited. When I talked to some of the university staff in Canada they said that of course it was most essential to have discussions with members of the National Liberation Front. A senior Canadian diplomat not long ago, on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary of the Canadian Government, went to Vietnam to have discussions to try to make a contribution, to prepare a better understanding of the position and perhaps to help to bring about a negotiation.
It has been the earnest endeavour—there is no doubt about that—of our Government for a considerable time to adopt an attitude which also would be accepted by people in Vietnam, North and South, as an attitude reasonably disposed to help to bring about a negotiation. There is more than one view about whether they have gone the right way about it, but I do not question for a moment the attitude of members of the Government in wishing to bring about a negotiation.
This matter we are discussing possibly cuts right across all the professions that have come from the Government on this question. It is not a small matter, but at the same time it is a very limited matter. There are in this country a number of students who believe in academic freedom. Some are to be found in the London School of Economics. Not long ago I was on the same platform with two well-known members of the Conservative Party discussing Vietnam at a meeting of the Students' Union of the London School of Economics. It was a meeting at which every point of view was expressed.
The first point I put to my hon. Friend is that he and the Government must not underestimate that they are in a minority in this country in the attitude they have adopted towards these three students. Whatever point of view was expressed by the students in this college, people deeply opposed to the attitude of President Ho Chi Minh and actions of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam are of one mind that it is not reasonable but wholly alien to our traditions to keep out a few students who have been invited by a bona fide British organisation of students to have a discussion.
This matter was debated in the Penistone Constituency Labour Party at its annual meeting. At that meeting, which was a meeting of delegates, a motion was debated for an hour and a half. There are many delegates in that constituency Labour Party who support the Government on their general policy—many are opposed to the Government on their general policy—but they agreed by a majority of two to one that this particular decision must be opposed. They urged me at the earliest possible opportunity in the House of Commons to bring that point of view to the notice of the Government. My hon. Friend will know that, had there been a motion before the annual conference of the Labour Party on the admission of these three students to this country, there would not have been a narrow majority in favour of such a motion, but the vote would have been nearly unanimous. It would have been difficult to find a member of the National Executive to make a case against it.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are in an isolated position on this matter. What was very disturbing recently in announcements made by various official circles was the introduction of the Foreign Office into this debate. Incidentally, I do not believe that either the Home Office or the Foreign Office had anything to do with the particular broadcast not being given on B.B.C. television. What information I have has led me to believe that that was not a realistic charge and I do not wish to be identified with it in any way. I am discussing purely the decision of the Home Office to refuse the three students entry to this country and to participate in an exchange of information with students at the London School of Economics and possibly other universities.
A disturbing factor is that a report in the New Statesman and other reports have gone unchallenged. Those reports said that the Home Office does not necessarily take the view which has led to its decision but that this is a Foreign Office view and that in matters of this kind the Home Secretary can do no other than accept the view of the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office and act accordingly. I invite my hon. Friend to clear up this matter tonight. This


is a direct responsibility of his office. If this were the true position we would be in a very difficult situation because it would mean that the Home Office, which is the guardian both of our security and our liberties at one and the same time, would have abdicated responsibility in matters of this kind. That would be a very serious and dangerous precedent quite beyond the importance of this immediate case. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with me on this one point.
Every Department, of course, has the right to give advice to the Home Secretary, but the Home Secretary is in the special position that as guardian of our liberties he has to act in many ways in a quasi-judicial capacity. This is not the only field in which it is a duty to do so. It would be a very dangerous development if it became accepted governmental doctrine that a Minister of another Department, for reasons which appeared valid to him, could decide that a certain decision must be made in a certain way and that the Home Secretary would then be obliged, without necessarily agreeing with that view, to implement that decision. It is one of the duties of my hon. Friend to give a clear answer on this matter.
I make a further appeal to him. He knows public opinion on this matter. He knows that opinion in many circles is not necessarily hostile to the Government's general point of view on Vietnam. I appeal to him to find a way by which this matter can be put right, by which it should become known to the students of that college and other universities that if in future they decide to invite students from the National Liberation Front to come and have a discussion with them the Home Office will not continue its ban.
What is at stake here is not only the good name and the traditions of liberty that have been established in this country. There is also at stake a policy which is absurd if we are looking forward, perhaps, to a not too distant future when Her Majesty's Government may once again, together with the Governments of other nations, try to play a useful part in bringing this tragic conflict to an end.
We know that one of the gravest impediments when the present Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime

Minister, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, went to Hanoi to try to bring about negotiations, the greatest handicap to him was that people said, "You are completely one-sided, you are identified with the American point of view and the point of view of the South Vietnam Government. You do not want even to listen to another case". It is not in our interest to create the impression that that is so.
Therefore, both on grounds of principle and grounds of practical political wisdom, I ask my hon. Friend to give us some intimation that this silly policy will not be continued in future.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: It has been alleged that the Opposition appear to have no conscience. I can speak only for myself. Any case of the British Government's refusing permission for anyone to come to these shores causes me great concern. One or two questions must be asked. It is obvious that the charge that the Home Secretary did not make this decision is true. Obviously this was a decision by the Foreign Office, whose job it is to consider all the facts surrounding this and other cases. Not long ago another man was refused entry to this country. He wanted to talk about Rhodesia, but I did not hear a murmur from Labour Members against permission being refused to him to come here and state what he thought was his case. I do not say that two wrongs make a right, but that was a case in which many of us may not have agreed with the argument he wanted to present and he was prevented from coming here.

Mr. Winnick: Are not we officially in dispute with Rhodesia? We are not in dispute with North Vietnam. The person who wanted to come over here from Rhodesia was a racialist defending a system of white supremacy which the House of Commons has always rejected. He was also in a state of treason.

Mr. Mawby: That shows that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in freedom or in freedom of speech, because he has said that because a particular person holds certain views which he regards as wrong that person should not be listened to. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: This is a debate about free speech. I want to hear it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Although there was not a murmur from this side against the prohibition of the speaker from Rhodesia, what does that matter? If every hon. Member on this side had supported the prohibition imposed against that person, does the hon. Gentleman now contend that, because we on this side did not raise our voices in protest on that occasion, he on this occasion should also be silent? Is not an infringement of liberty an infringement of liberty, whichever party fights it and whichever Government commits it? I would sympathise much more with the opinion the hon. Gentleman has been expressing about the Rhodesian speaker if he, for his part, would make one single motion in favour of this side of the House and its opposition to the prohibition against the Vietnamese students.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that freedom of speech and freedom of entry should not be restricted as against any person. I do not even suggest that the fact that the Government refused entry to one person is a good reason for their refusing entry to another. I want merely to point out that this man, who was not a Rhodesian but was of American nationality, was nevertheless refused permission to come here.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) gave the game away and disclosed his own attitude—I am not saying that the whole of the Government benches can be branded with the same name—by saying that the person I have mentioned was a special type of man and, because he was a special type of man, we in Britain should not listen to him because he was a racialist, and so on.

Mr. Winnick: I did not say that.

Mr. Mawby: Either there is free speech or there is not. Wherever it is possible and not absolutely against the national interest, people should be free to come here and make their point. We are told that these were three students who wish to come here and give a simple message. They wanted to give a simple

message, but not to hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite have said, "We want to hear their side of it". This was not so. These students were to come and talk to some students at the London School of Economics. How did they get here? Did they run round with the hat among their fellow students, or did they have the support—

Mr. Stan Newens: What does that matter?

Mr. Mawby: It matters a great deal. However democratic one may be, it is important that one does not go into any ring with one's hands tied behind one's back. The Foreign Secretary is more aware of this than many of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that what the Home Secretary has to consider is, not what the man comes to say, not who he wants to say it to, but who paid for his trip?

Mr. Mawby: Obviously the Home Secretary cannot know what the person wants to say. No Home Secretary can know what any person will say. All that the Home Secretary can concern himself with is—under what aegis does a person or a group of persons come? The Home Secretary must obviously take into account that no one other than picked people would be allowed to leave Vietnam. We have seen this sort of thing happen time after time.
It has been said that public opinion here is totally against L.B.J. and the whole Vietnam conflict. I question that contention. However, if I wanted to know what public opinion here felt the last place I would go to would be to students, either British students or any other students. They could give me no idea of what public opinion was.
I accept that, if the report in the Evening Standard is right, everything that has been said from the Government Front Bench lately is nonsense, because the Prime Minister has from time to time said, "Naturally, we are not involved. Because we are co-Chairmen, we have resolved that we will stand on one side and have nothing to do with this conflict". If, as the Evening Standard suggets, the British Navy has been involved in this, it is obviously right that both the


Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should be harried until they are prepared to give the reasons why this sort of thing should happen.
My purpose in speaking was to convince hon. Members opposite that, whatever our views on this side, we do indeed have views and that we are as concerned as they are about the basic freedoms that ought to be allowed in Britain. However, a position can be allowed to develop until suddenly, overnight, democracy has had so much dug away from beneath it that it no longer exists. This is the balance that all of us have to strike. I shall be interested in what the Under-Secretary says in reply.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On an occasion when a Minister acts totally out of character with everything that is his past record, when he acts out of tune with all that he has stood for very honourably over many years, have not we some right to raise an eyebrow and ask some rather direct questions as to how this came about? I simply state that I cannot bring myself to believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knew about this decision. Nor can I bring myself to believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, with his extremely honourable record in all this kind of matter, knew about the decision.
I go further. I do not think some of my hon. Friends will agree with this. It also appears to me that this particular kind of decision is out of character with the type of decision which would have been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I find it very hard to believe that the Foreign Secretary, whose views may not be shared by many of us on this subject, would take this kind of decision.
I therefore want to ask this very direct question: was it in fact a Civil Service so-called routine decision? It may be said that this is the kind of question which should not be asked in the British Parliament, that one does not ask about the decisions of civil servants. But when this disgraceful kind of thing happens, it is about time that we asked questions about civil servants.
I therefore say very bluntly to my right hon. Friend that, while I am not asking

for the sacking or demotion of any particular civil servant, when hon. Members raise questions of this kind they are entitled to the truth. If there is error, why can we not admit error? It is about time that this system of government was changed so that if things have gone wrong and if there has been error, politicians can feel free to admit it and others can judge. All I am asking for is the truth of what actually happened in this disgraceful episode.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: Along with other hon. Members, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) for raising this subject in the first place, because it is of vital importance. I was concerned about it before he raised it and I was in correspondence with the Minister on the subject when the students were known to be coming to this country.
As others have said, in this country we are proud of the traditions of freedom of speech which prevail here, or which are said to prevail here. One of the meanings of democracy is the right to dissent, but if we refuse to allow others the right to dissent, we adopt the very methods of the systems which we pride ourselves on criticising. The decision in this issue represents the steady erosion of our freedoms which has been taking place in many respects. We would do very well to make it clear that we in the House are not prepared to tolerate this sort of precedent.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) referred to the Rhodesian regime. The Rhodesian regime has not had any great difficulty about putting its case in this country although its relationship with this country is very different from that which is supposed to prevail between us and North Vietnam. The present régime in Rhodesia is illegal and has acted in defiance of this country. Nevertheless, there has been a display of coins at an office in this country to commemorate that act of treason. I asked about that display of coins, but the Government took no action against it. There is a strong contrast between the action of the Government in the Rhodesian situation and their attitude towards freedom of speech in this and on the subject of Vietnam.
Nobody could maintain that the entry of these students would be dangerous to the security of the State, or that the safety of the realm would be put in peril if the students were allowed to stay here for some time. The Foreign Secretary has spoken at great length of his desire that everyone should show a willingness to talk. Perhaps if we can express, even at this humble level, our willingness to talk, that may have a useful effect at all levels. Can anybody say that the decision to exclude these students will engender good will between the British people and the British Government and the people and Government of North Vietnam?
I believe that this obsequious gesture to the policy of the United States Administration, which is what it is, will do considerable damage to any effort which the Foreign Secretary may be making to get some sort of response from North Vietnam. It sweeps away once again any vestige of the British Government's claim to independence in this dispute, and it makes it clear that Britain is no more than a satellite of the United States in its attitude to the Vietnam war.
We must also consider the effect of this sort of decision on our own students and our own population. I believe that it will have exactly the opposite effect to that which one imagines the Government to be seeking to secure. If the Government had said that they had nothing to hide and would allow these students to come in and put their case, they would have come out of it very much better than they will, because everyone now imagines, and I believe correctly, that the Government are taking this decision to exclude these students for the wrong reasons.
I believe, as other hon. Members believe, that the majority of people in this country would agree with the admission of these students and that the majority of people would agree with the decision at the Labour Party conference a few weeks ago that the British Government should dissociate themselves completely from American policy in Vietnam. The decision to exclude these students and to stop them from talking about these terrible issues can only strengthen the opinion, which I believe to be the majority opinion, in this country that the Government are totally wrong in the policy which they have been pursuing towards the Vietnam war.
I have heard it suggested that the students were not admitted because the policy of the British Government was peace and that the students would preach the continuation of the conflict. That sort of argument is transparent nonsense. I have no particular complaint against my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, whose record is well known to me, but I think that the Government at the highest level should recognise that they made a bad mistake on this issue, that this was a disgraceful act which, if it cannot be repudiated, should at least be put right by a change in the policy when other students seek to come to this country to put views expressing the policy of either North or South Vietnam. We have to make it clear that we are independent. The Government's policy has done nothing to make that clear; it has done the opposite. It is time that a change was made and I hope that at the highest level the Government will decide not to repeat the error of this decision.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but merely to take the opportunity of indicating the support of myself and my colleagues for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) and other hon. Members opposite. I am very concerned about free speech, about the rights of our people, whether they are students or anyone else, to hear both sides of every question in dispute. I want to know, simply and straightforwardly, why the Government have refused entry to these three students. On what ground are they basing this refusal? We have the right to know.

7.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The House will realise that any Minister is at a disadvantage in replying to a debate of which he has had no advance notice. I am not making any complaints about this. My hon. Friends seized the opportunity that time presented to them to say what was in their minds. That is the purpose of this House, and I therefore welcome the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker).
Part of the disadvantage is not only that a Minister comes, when the debate has already started, from a meeting at which he was dealing with other matters, but clearly he has not had the advantage, as he normally would in an Adjournment debate, of exchanging views with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as I would have liked to have done before replying.
The second point that I must make is that this cannot be a foreign affairs debate, nor can it be a foreign affairs reply. Although my hon. Friend was kind enough to phone to my office to let me know that he intended to raise this matter, as far as I know the Foreign Office was not warned, and it would obviously not be proper for me to try to deal with this as if it were a debate on the situation in Vietnam. I cannot, therefore, make any comments on any Press reports which may have appeared today —I have not read any evening papers. I must not be expected to comment on these matters which must be taken up at another time, or in another place.
This debate has shown the strength of feeling existing, I will not say in all parts of the House, but in some parts of it. It is not just an indication of the strength of feeling of many of my hon. Friends about the importance of all sides of an issue being heard, and of the principles of free speech and so on. It also represents the depth of feeling existing in the country over the war in Vietnam.
If we were dealing with any other situation, and any other group of people who might have arrived at London Airport seeking permission to visit the country, we might not have heard what we have heard tonight. We know that there is deep feeling concerning the Vietnamese situation. In replying to this debate, I am anxious to get the matter in perspective. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the British Government being subservient, or servile, to the United States. This concept of servility and subservience is not one that is typical of my right lion. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He is not only a man of independence and courage, but I do not believe that anyone on any side of the House, certainly on this side, would doubt the sincerity of intent of my

right hon. Friend to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not the question.

Mr. Ennals: If my right hon. Friend is accused of being subservient and servile, I would have thought that the question of his sincerity of intent was the question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point whether this decision of the Home Office was taken without reference to the Foreign Office at all?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend might respect me enough to think that I will reach this question. I must deal with the debate in my own way, and I would be grateful if he would permit me to do so.
I was on the point of saying that the sincerity of intent of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary cannot be questioned. He has made many attempts to bring together both sides, to seek a conference where a peaceful settlement can be negotiated. He has reiterated his position in this House, as he did at the Labour Party conference in Scarborough. His determination to take every opportunity to seek a peaceful settlement is one known to us all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I used the word "subserviency" and so on, but I was referring to policy, not questioning the integrity of the present Foreign Secretary. I was referring to the subservient policy adopted by this Government towards the United States Government from the very beginning.

Mr. Ennals: I can assure my hon. Friend that the decision, to which I will come eventually, was certainly not dictated to us by the United States or any foreign Government. If that is the assurance that he wants, I will most readily give it.
Neither do I believe that there can be any serious question on any side of the House concerning the liberality of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I was glad that one of my hon. Friends referred to his liberal approach on very many important social questions. He is a champion of free speech in Britain. His reputation is not held in question this evening.
Some of my hon. Friends have carried the argument a little far in suggesting that students in this country are not free to express their own or any other point of view. [Interruption.] Any who said that there is not total freedom for students in this country to argue for or against American or British policy, or any other policy in Vietnam, must know that this is not so. Many of my hon. Friends have taken part in debates in universities, at meetings, at demonstrations, and if the right to dissent, which was questioned by one of my hon. Friends, is in dispute, he need only to have attended the Labour Party conference to have seen that the right to dissent was exercised there.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I feel that he must explain who were the Members supposed to have made this statement. I have sat through the debate and I have not heard one hon. Member making this point. Can he tell us who has done so?

Mr. Ennals: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) who used the term "the steady erosion of our freedom". He used this term after he and others had suggested that in some way there was a limitation on the freedom of students to argue, and express their views.—[HON. MEMBERS: No.] If none of my hon. Friends now say that they have raised this and if the question of the steady erosion of our freedom is not an issue, I will be very happy to accept their assurances and continue.

Mr. Newens: As I have been named, may I take this opportunity of making it quite clear that I made no such implication. I did not say that there was not full freedom among students in this country to debate. My hon. Friend has obviously misconstrued what I said. I take the same attitude as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on this matter.

Mr. Ennals: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. I think that we are all proud of the extent to which there is expression of all points of view. One might wish that the same degree of freedom to dissent from Government policy existed in the countries which are supporting the North Viet-

namese Government. There is no truth whatever in an assertion made by one of my hon. Friends that some pressure was brought to bear upon the B.B.C. not to broadcast some programmes. I believe that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who clearly has had some information on this, knows that there is no truth in that suggestion. Neither is there any question of it being Government policy to refuse entry to all critics of the war in Vietnam. There are no doubt—and my hon. Friends have referred to this—people from many countries, including the United States, who have come here and argued their case on public platforms, on television and in the Press.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Why?

Mr. Ennals: I am coming to that. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient. I was patient when the arguments were put to me. There is no intention by the Home Office to deny to critics of either British Government policy or American Government policy the right to come here and argue their case.
There cannot have been an occasion in recent years when a public issue has been more openly and publicly debated than the issue in Vietnam has been debated in this country, as it is in the United States. To compare this refusal with visits which my hon. Friends paid to the United States a little earlier this year is absurd. To suggest that, because these three persons were not admitted, the United States Government are, therefore, more liberal by allowing a number of Labour Members of Parliament to go to the United States is to stretch the credulity of the House. We welcome people coming here and arguing their case and exchanging views, as my hon. Friends did in the United States during the Recess.
I turn to the facts about the situation in question. It has been said that action was taken to stop London School of Economics students hearing these three Vietnamese. One might have assumed from this that the London School of Economics, or the Students Union and other students of the L.S.E. who were anxious to hear the views of these students had made application in advance


for them to come here. One might even have imagined that, if the delegation wished to come, they might have applied for visas. But none of the three persons concerned made any approach to our representative in any part of the world applying for visas to come to Britain. There was no advance application for visas. It was only a very short time before these persons were due to arrive in London that we knew that they were intending to arrive in London or that there was any question of this particular group arriving in London to take part in any debate.

Mr. Frank Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that before we went into Recess for the summer I was in correspondence with him about the possibility of these students coming to Britain and was informed by his Department in categorical terms that there could be no question of visas being issued?

Mr. Ennals: It is certainly true that my hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members were in correspondence with the Home Office—in fact, with me personally—on the question of a number of delegations. I am not aware that this group was the group about which my hon. Friend made any representations. In fact, I did not know the names of the persons until they had almost arrived at London Airport. Therefore, little opportunity was given for us to look at the applications for these three persons.

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend suggest that, notwithstanding the categorical answers given to my correspondence before the Recess, the Home Office would have been prepared to look at the issue anew?

Mr. Ennals: I am not suggesting that. But we would have looked at the applications.
I now want to turn to the three persons concerned. I do not believe that, except with a great stretch of the imagination, one could call this a delegation of students. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who saw them, described them as three young people aged 25, 22 and 21. He greatly under-estimated the ages of these supposed students, one of whom was advanc-

ing to middle age. This is why I have not been calling them students.
The first was Mr. Ly Van Sau, aged 37. He must have been studying for a very long time. He was the deputy head of the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front permanent mission in Cuba. He is, therefore, a diplomat based in Cuba. He was the leader of the so-called student delegation. To imagine that this was a little group of friendly students who had come over to express their own personal views in frank discussion with their student brothers—those who made that suggestion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon Members have been listened to in complete silence. I would remind the House that this is a debate about freedom of speech.

Mr. Ennals: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If one of my hon. Friends wishes to intervene, I will notice him, but I should like to complete the delegation.
The second member of the delegation was aged 34. She is Mrs. Nguyen Ngoc Dung. She has been active as a representative of the South Vietnamese Liberation Front Women's Union. She is also a member of the Central Committee of the South Vietnam Pupils and Students Association. I do not think that it is seriously suggested that she is a student in the sense that we conceive of the word "student" in this country.
The third member of the delegation—the baby of the party—was admittedly only aged 27. He was Mr. Le Mai. Whether he is continuing his studies in any centre of academic learning in Vietnam or any part of the world, I very much doubt.
This collection of people was quite clearly selected to present a particular point of view. The suggestion that it should be treated as a student delegation is one which I frankly cannot accept.

Mr. Mendelson: Before we follow my hon. Friend into the details of the group of three, will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who had correspondence with my hon. Friend and was categorically told that there could be no question of any such students being admitted? Is he seriously arguing that, having rejected any potential application for admittance of these students, he would


have admitted them if the application had been made? Will he—and this is the test—admit a delegation of students if they are a little younger and come from the National Liberation Front?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot say what decision would have been taken if we had received an application for visas for these three particular persons. Had it been suggested that this was a student delegation, I think that that would have been open to question. My hon. Friend has asked me what would be the Government's attitude if another student delegation were to seek a visa. I will come to that question in a minute. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with what I have to say, I will be very happy to stand down.
The point which I am making is that these three people who arrived from Canada were not students in the sense in which we accept the word.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I may be responsible for a misunderstanding. Because these three people had been addressing students, and because they looked to my untrained eye to be younger than they obviously were, I assumed that they were students, and I said that they were students. I do not know that they ever told me that they were students. They certainly wished to address students in this country. If I said that they were students, I will take full responsibility for that. I simply thought that they were students.

Mr. Ennals: I think that quite a number of people were taken in by the circumstances of this case, and this is one reason why I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate. Clearly a number of my hon. Friends and a number of student groups were under the impression, no doubt sincerely, that this was a small group of students instead of a group of middle-aged people who were clearly coming—[Interruption.] Once one has reached my age, one considers people of these years to be middle-aged.

Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated. As you did not receive any application—

Mr. Speaker: Order. "You" means Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member must use the Parliamentary form of address.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have gone slightly astray in Parliamentary language. Even after three years, I find it difficult to speak other than in the normal way in which I am used to speaking to other people.
I would like my hon. Friend to explain how he knows the ages of the three people, because he says that he did not receive an application for a visa. This is intriguing. The three people came to London Airport only for a couple of hours and then went off again. If no application was received, how does my hon. Friend have all these details of the visitors?

Mr. Ennals: That is an easy question to answer. Whenever anyone arrives at London Airport with a desire to be admitted, he is asked for details of himself. The two gentlemen and the lady were kind enough to serve the immigration officer with the information for which he asked.
My point, therefore, in conclusion of this part of what I have to say, is that it could not be considered in any sense as a student delegation. The thought that these were unsophisticated students, that they had come to exchange views with their colleagues or that they were in any way open to persuasion or to take part in the cut and thrust of debate, is one which cannot be accepted. They were propagandists. They would undoubtedly have had no freedom to give other than a straight governmental view had they been here. It would have been purely a propaganda exercise on behalf of the North Vietnamese authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is my hon. Friend's objection to propaganda? Surely, he would not be where he is now if it were not for propagandists like myself.

Mr. Ennals: This point was raised in an exchange by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who, I am sorry to see, has left his place. Perhaps he was not as interested in the subject as he suggested at the time. He raised, however, the issue as to whether it was right in certain circumstances to question the purpose of a visit. It was suggested by one of my hon. Friends that the purpose of a visit should not be at issue when the decision is taken whether to


grant a visa or to permit entry to aliens who arrive here without visas. My view is that the purpose of a visit must be considered.
My hon. Friend referred to the quite different set of circumstances of a Rhodesian who might wish to come here and argue the case for an illegal régime—there has been correspondence with hon. Friends of mine about this—and whether we should admit aliens who arrive and who, it is known, have Fascist views and wish to seek the opportunity of student and other audiences to express those views. During my short period at the Home Office, I have certainly had representations from my Parliamentary colleagues that certain named persons should not be admitted because of the views they held and because the expression of those views in this country was in no interest of peace or of good relations.
The question sometimes arises whether someone who may hold extreme racialist views and whose purpose might be to stir up racial hatred should be admitted. I submit that the purpose of an alien when intending to come and be admitted to this country is relevant.
It is a very difficult question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would always be very reluctant to deny entry to anyone. His natural inclination would be to accept an alien who wishes to come to this country and to make statements and take part in policy discussions. We must, however, ask ourselves whether the visit in question by this group of propagandists would have served any purpose in bringing about a settlement of the war in Vietnam or in clarifying the views of the British public or of British students, and whether any purpose would have been served in the interests of peace and good understanding by admitting the delegation. It was the Government's view that no purpose would be served in trying to bring about a peaceful settlement by admitting the delegation.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has explained about certain racialists, white or black, not being allowed into Britain. That is fair enough. Has anyone been prevented from coming into Britain, however, to put the American point of view

on Vietnam? It seems to me that Americans have been here putting the official point of view. If we are to be neutral, as the Foreign Secretary has stated that we should be neutral in this struggle, why should we not allow in Communists from North Vietnam or from South Vietnam controlled by Communists to put their point of view? What harm is there in that?

Mr. Ennals: In the early part of his question, my hon. Friend asked whether there was not point in admitting people who take an anti-American view of the war in Vietnam. As I said earlier, many people have been admitted to this country whose views are known to be against the war in Vietnam—

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me.

Mr. Ennals: —and they have taken the opportunity of expressing those views while they were in this country.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I wanted to know whether any Americans had been prevented from coming over to put the official American policy on Vietnam. The students were not allowed in because they represented the other side. Have Americans been refused entry to this country because they wanted to give the official American Government line on Vietnam?

Mr. Ennals: No, they have not. There is a difference, as my hon. Friend will recognise, in our relationship with the United States and the representatives of North Vietnam. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"] There is no reason to say "Ah" about this. It is fully understood by the House and by my hon. Friends that we do not have diplomatic relationships with North Vietnam. This—to put it on all fours with exchanges with the United States—does not make sense.

Mr. Dalyell: Have I misunderstood, or is my hon. Friend saying that the State—in this case, the Government of Britain—should be the arbiter of the views which students of the London School of Economics or elsewhere should hear? I hope that he can deny this, but that was what I thought he said.

Mr. Ennals: I most readily deny it. If my hon. Friend suspects that it is the


Government's intention to determine what views can circulate by word of mouth, writings, speeches or demonstrations to students, he does not understand the situation. He knows well that every point of view has been presented. The issue at stake is whether we should have admitted these three persons who were called, by some, "students". It has been suggested—

Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ennals: I have given way many times. I must proceed with answering the questions which have been put to me by many hon. Members who took the opportunity to participate in the debate.
I was asked whether the decision was one by the Home Office, the Foreign Office or some other Government Department. The answer is that this was a decision of the Government. Clearly this is a decision which all members of the Government would accept. The suggestion that knives have been held by one Minister against another is purely supposition.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my hon. Friend now saying that the decision as to whether the Home Secretary should allow an alien to enter the country is a decision of the Government? I thought that it was a decision entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary and exercisable by him alone.

Mr. Ennals: The responsibility, of course, falls upon the Home Secretary to decide whether to grant a visa to permit entry, as to how long a person should stay, or what have you; but, of course, there are occasions, many occasions, on which in deciding, whether it be a small person or a large person, from that country or another, there may be discussion with other Government Departments. Sometimes it may be with the Foreign Office; sometimes it may be with the Department of Commonwealth Affairs; sometimes it would be with the Department of Education and Science, if it were a delegation of students or of academics; sometimes it would be with the Minister of Technology if it were a group of scientists.
I am saying that the decision taken by the Home Office is in fact a decision of the Government. I want emphatically

to repudiate any suggestion that this was a decision simply taken by a civil servant. Ministers must accept responsibility for decisions that are taken, and neither my right hon. Friend nor I would seek to evade the responsibility which falls when a decision like this is made. It is always unfortunate, I think, when suggestions are made in the House that a decision has been taken by a civil servant; it is always important that Ministers should rise to make it clear where the responsibility lies when decisions are taken.
I was also asked whether this policy of the Government is a permanent one. This was a question which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), and I am certain it is a question which is in the mind also of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). I cannot answer this question. I cannot answer it because this debate has taken place; views have been expressed in this debate which I must report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I do not think that he would expect me to give an answer to a question of this importance if he has not himself had the opportunity of weighing up the issues in question. No doubt, at some stage, this matter will be referred to again. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the views which have been expressed. I can say that the matter is one which will be reviewed.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to you for giving way. May I ask for clarification on one point? You have said that you had no knowledge—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member must use the traditional address. He must say "my honourable Friend" or "the honourable Member".

Mr. Judd: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has said that the Department had no knowledge of the specific delegation until a few days before it was due. Yet when I inquired last summer about the possibility of a delegation visiting I was told in categorical terms that there was no question of a delegation of students from Vietnam, if envisaged, being admitted. Could my hon. Friend possibly clarify the position? Was there a decision in principle about all delegations, or was it


simply a decision about this particular delegation?

Mr. Ennals: There was a decision in principle taken at the time when my hon. Friend was in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whether it was June or July last year.
He asked me whether I would link together that application of principle and this particular group, and I can assure him that I did not know of the intention of this group to arrive in London until approximately 48 hours before it actually arrived at London Airport. I did not know what the names or the status or the ages of these persons were until they had arrived. If my hon. Friend is asking me whether the three persons, called by some "students", who arrived at London Airport, were the persons he had in mind I can only say "I do not know." Maybe he knows himself, but it is not in my knowledge.

Mr. Judd: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I think he is putting up a valiant defence for a case which, I am sure, in his heart he does not really like. The point I was putting to him was that a decision had been made last summer in principle against admitting any student delegation whatsoever.

Mr. Ennals: I have already said that the decision was taken in principle in June or July last year and that this was a matter on which there was correspondence with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Orme: May I ask a question on the same point?

Mr. Ennals: All right.

Mr. Orme: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the first interrogation I have made since I spoke. Why did we have from my hon. Friend this long catalogue of these three people—their ages, how they were middle-aged, the fact that they were not students—if the Government had taken a decision in principle? He makes ludicrous what he has said.

Mr. Ennals: I have not said that the Government have taken a decision that no persons will be admitted. The debate was raised this evening concerning the refusal to admit three persons at London

Airport, and it is very relevant to know those persons' names and their ages and whether we could seriously take them as a student delegation.
I must bring my remarks to a close. There has been a great deal of emotion in the House this evening, and I can understand it. As I said at the very beginning of my reply, feelings about free speech run very deep, especially among those sitting on this side of the House. There might also be some reason to feel emotion at the failure of the North Vietnamese régime to take such steps as they can to see an end to this conflict. I want in conclusion to reiterate words which were said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in reply to a Question on 1st June. He said:
The need at the moment is to talk about peace, not about war. If the North Vietnamese Government were willing to accept our representatives for serious talks on ways and means of ending the conflict, or were willing to send their representatives here for this purpose, they would find Her Majesty's Government immediately responsive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 250.]

SCOTLAND (MURDERS AND POLICE RECRUITMENT)

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like to raise very briefly the subject of the increase in murders in Scotland, and the shortage of police in Scotland.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—I am sorry that there seems to be no general interest here in this subject, but I assure the House that it is of great interest to the people of Scotland. I say at the outset that I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for turning up at very short notice for this debate, and I shall try not to detain him too long.
Normally, when we raise a subject of this sort on the Adjournment, we try to obtain from the Government specific assurances on a wide range of topics, but I can assure the Under-Secretary straight away that I have no intention of asking for widespread or general assurances. I ask only one thing, that he will as from this day, and looking to the future, show a very real sense of urgency in his policies in trying to deal with these two separate matters.
I deal first of all with the question of murders in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandy s) has done a great public service in drawing attention to the very substantial increase in murders in Great Britain as a whole. I intend to draw attention only to the position in Scotland. Let us look at some of the figures which have recently been available. In the year 1966, in Scottish courts 45 people were charged with murder. That, of course, is a substantial figure, and compares with a figure of only nine in the year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I wonder if the hon. Member would help me. Is he asking for further legislation, or for the strengthening of existing legislation, because if he is, that is out of order on the Adjournment. If he is not, I am not quite sure how he is relating what he is saying to Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Taylor: My sole intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to draw the Minister's attention to the seriousness of the situation in the hope that, in future public utterances, he will show a sense of urgency, as I think I made quite clear in my opening sentence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am still in some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman can only raise matters which are within the competence and responsibility of the Minister. I am not sure that this is.

Mr. Taylor: The shortage of police in Scotland and the issuing of the publication "Criminal Statistics" would be the Minister's responsibility, with respect. I was not asking for legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now on a point which is within the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the hope of trying to persuade the Minister to show a sense of urgency in his public announcements and in his general attitude to these matters, I wish to draw attention to three different statistics.
In the year 1966, 45 people were brought before the Scottish courts charged with murder. In 1963, the figure was nine. The fact is that, looked at in any

way, there has been a startling increase in the number of people appearing before Scottish courts charged with murder. It could be said that some of these murders relate to previous years, that there has been some overspill, and that, to that extent, the figures are not directly relevant. To look at the position another way, therefore, one might consider how many murders have actually taken place in the years 1965 and 1966, 1965 being the year when the move was started to abolish capital punishment.
In 1965, we had 32 murders in Scotland. In 1966, we had 30. That means that, on average, there were 31 murders in Scotland in each of those two years. If that position is compared with an earlier year, 1961 was by no means an exception, and one sees that there were 14 murders. It means that, in five years, the number of murders in Scotland has doubled.
It might be said that the figures for culpable homicides and murders can be juggled one way or the other and that, if only one figure is taken, a misleading impression can be gained. That is why I am interested particularly in the figures for culpable homicide in Scotland contained in "Criminal Statistics", where it is seen that 36 people were charged with culpable homicide in 1966, from which it is clear that the figure is 50 per cent. higher than in any year since 1962.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that, whichever way they are looked at, the figures are alarming. The number of people tried has gone up four times since 1963, the number of murders has doubled since 1961, and the number of culpable homicides is 50 per cent. higher than in any of the previous five years.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the people tried were tried for murders for which the death penalty would have been applicable under the old law?

Mr. Taylor: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman those details. However, it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has drawn attention to the fact that the number of murders which would have been the subject of capital punishment in Great


Britain has increased by more than 50 per cent. It may be that the figures for Scotland are different, but the important factor is that those who believe in capital punishment as a deterrent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to matters which require a change in the law. He is out of order in raising them in a debate on the Adjournment. He must direct himself to requiring the Minister to do something within his competence which does not require legislation. The reintroduction of capital punishment would require legislation.

Mr. Taylor: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I draw attention to the fact that the abolition of capital punishment lapses in three and a half years? My hope would to persuade the Minister to do nothing after the period of three and a half years has elapsed. I am not calling for legislation. I am asking the Minister to do nothing at all.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many people in Scotland have been executed for murder since before the war? There were 14 years when no one was executed, I think.

Mr. Taylor: I am not sure which of those interventions I should attempt to answer. I do not know the figures before the war. Those who believe that no new legislation should be enacted in three and a half years' time are not concerned with having a lot of people subject to capital punishment. However, we feel that it is a unique deterrent which can help decrease the incidence not only of capital murder but of all forms of murder, because not all that many people in the criminal world will differentiate between the two. It could be a deterrent to all persons engaging in crime, particularly to all those who carry offensive weapons.

Mr. George Willis: This is the strangest Adjournment debate that I have listened to for many years. We are having a debate to tell a Minister to do nothing. Surely the object of an Adjournment debate is to call attention to maladministration or to the necessity for a Minister to do something which is within his administrative capacity. I have never heard a Ruling given that we can have a debate calling upon a Minister

to do nothing. It seems to be rather absurd.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will appreciate that the Chair has had some difficulty with the debate so far. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) will now come on to something more positive than his rather negative approach so far. He must address himself to the competence of the Minister. To say that he wishes the Minister to do nothing is not the purpose of this debate.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a question of the Minister persuading the Government to do nothing when the present legislation lapses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a point of order.

Mr. Taylor: When I suggested that the Minister should do something, that was ruled out of order. Now I suggest that the Minister should do nothing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was only when the hon. Member for Cathcart appeared to suggest that what he had in mind would require legislation that I said that it was out of order.

Mr. Taylor: I am obliged, My Deputy Speaker. Then may I try to get into order by suggesting that the figures which I have presented already and others which I shall bring forward should persuade him to take substantial action to try to remedy the shortage of police in Scotland, which is a direct responsibility of his.
We have a situation today where the numbers of murders are increasing substantially. At the same time, we have a desperate shortage of police. This alarming position in Scotland is causing people to be afraid to open their doors and to walk through our towns and cities, and one thing which should be done is to ensure that un-to-date information is available in the way of statistics.
I was extremely alarmed, when I put down two Questions on today's Order Paper asking for up-to-date information on the number of murders which took place in the first nine months of 1967, to be told that the figures are not available and will not be until 1968. The


criminal statistics for 1966 were not published until August, 1967, in Command Paper 3336. Faced with this very substantial increase in the number of murders, does that mean that the Government will not be in a position to give up-to-date information until August, 1968? That is an inference which I must draw from the fact that the statistics for 1966 were not published until August, 1967.
I suggest that it is rather alarming that we should receive Parliamentary replies to Questions stating that figures will not be available until 1968 and that full detailed statistics will not be available until the publication of "Criminal Statistics", probably in August, 1968. I suggest that up-to-date information should be provided on the facts.
In view of the present situation, it is even more alarming that there is a desperate shortage of policemen in Scotland. In a Written Answer today I was told that at the latest date for which figures were available, namely, 30th September, 1967, the strength of all Scottish forces was 10,232, while the authorised establishment was 11,201. There is, therefore, a shortage of just under 1,000 men. This is alarming, and I put it to the Minister that perhaps some local authoritiies have refrained from putting in applications to increase their authorised establishments simply because they know that there is no point in doing so because of the present shortage.
Faced as we are with a substantial increase in crimes of all kinds, and particularly crimes involving violence, it is extremely alarming to find that the police force in Scotland is 1,000 below its authorised establishment, and the situation does not appear to be improving. In 1963 there was a shortage of about 300 men, while we are now 1,000 short. This is a serious situation, and the Minister must be aware of the alarm among people in Scotland about this state of affairs. I hope, therefore, that he will show a real sense of urgency in trying to put the matter right.
In the past the Minister has often tended to regard those who have expressed alarm about the situation as creating unnecessary fears among the population. He has tended to take the view that the situation will right itself, that the present state of affairs is a passing phase which will soon rectify itself, that

the situation is unavoidable, and that the Government can do nothing to help. I suggest that if we were to increase the number of policemen we could substantially reduce the amount of crime and bring about a greater degree of law and order in the community. I hope that both today and in the future the Minister will show much more urgency than has been shown to date.
Not long ago we received the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. Although dated October, 1967, the Report was for 1966. It is not good enough to publish a report in one year setting out the alarming situation which existed in the previous year. Let us have more urgency in dealing with this matter. Let us have up-to-date information. Let us have some positive sign that the Government are concerned about the matter, and are prepared to do something about it. If the hon. Gentleman can assure us about this, I am sure that the people of Scotland will be extremely grateful to him and to the Government.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) must, like everybody else, feel distressed that crimes occur, but it seems to me that his reading of the statistics is extremely superficial. He has not produced any reliable information.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to want to turn this discussion into a debate on the restoration of capital punishment as a deterrent. He may like to know that though for many years capital punishment was provided for by the law of Scotland, for about 14 years no one was executed for a capital offence. According to the hon. Gentleman, the statistics quoted by him will encourage people to go out and commit more murders.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics for murder, he will find that most of the crimes were the result of passion, and even if we had 2,000 to 3,000 more policemen in Scotland they could not stop a man murdering his sweetheart in a fit of passion. The only way of deterring people from committing premeditated crimes is to ensure that they are caught and punished, and for this we need an efficient police force.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Why has the number of murders doubled since 1961?

Mr. Woodburn: Passions may have doubled since 1961. The fact that the number of murders of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has been referring has doubled has nothing to do with the abolition or retention of capital punishment. A Royal Commission examined the statistics for murder in many countries and found no reason to associate executions with the number of murders.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject, he should read Buckle, who wrote a book about it in the eighteenth century. When the French Parliament debated the matter then, one of the eminent statisticians of the time showed that the proportion of murders per year in a given society varied very little. A certain number of murders take place in every community, and nothing that one can do has much effect in reducing the figure. This discussion on the statistics for murder has been going on for more than 150 years. The evidence shows that the retention of capital punishment has no demonstrable effect on the number of murders committed in any society.
I think that the House has wasted far too much time discussing capital punishment. There are far more important things than the punishment of a few murderers to discuss. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has painted this alarming picture about conditions in Scotland, thus causing women to become apprehensive about their safety. The type of murder that is committed nowadays is not the type that is influenced by the number of policemen available to deal with crime, and the hon. Gentleman is causing alarm and despondency among the population.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would do far more good if he were to devote himself to asking the Government to increase the number of policemen in Scotland, and to improve their training. A police college has been established there. It is doing excellent work in training young policemen and senior men in all the modern methods of detecting crime, which I submit will be a deterrent in the long term. A number of new methods of crime detection are being tried in Aberdeen and elsewhere. The community is not prepared to provide suffi-

cient money to have police patrols in every street.
An aggressor always has the advantage, because he is able to pick his spot. All too often we hear of robberies involving £100,000 or more. Such a large sum of money is a great temptation for people to use the latest scientific methods and commando tactics to commit crime. If the hon. Gentleman can suggest methods by which such crimes can be prevented, if he can suggest how jewellers' shops can be safeguarded, he will be doing a great service to the police. It is a great disservice on his part merely to grumble and suggest that nothing can be done to improve the present state of affairs.
The Scottish police force is among the most effective in the world in detecting crime. No city has a better record than Glasgow in this respect, and to cast doubts on the effectiveness of the police force, and to give people the feeling that they are not getting all the protection which they should be receiving, will, I think, cause unnecessary fear and alarm.
I agree that it would be desirable to have a full complement of policemen in Scotland, but is there any evidence that a reduction in the number of police available has had any effect on the crime rate? The hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence to show this. One presumes it might have, but he has produced no evidence to show that any of the crimes about which he has been talking owe their increase to the decrease in the size of the police force.
When a Member is putting a case in the House he should put it objectively, and not on a propaganda basis. The hon. Member built up this case and sought figures to prove some theory of his without any reference to the facts. This is a bad way of dealing with things. Just as in the case of the Leader of the Opposition and the television programme to which reference has been made, when people went round Conservative clubs picking out young Conservatives who criticised him, it gave a false picture. The Leader of the Opposition was challenged to reply to the criticisms of a whole lot of Young Conservatives who were not supposed to want him as a


leader. As far as I can see, it was not a balanced picture.
That is what the hon. Member has done tonight. He has not presented a balanced picture. He has not put forward an objective, statesmanlike argument. He has put forward a preconception, associated with his right hon. Friend, and has produced a whole lot of figures to back up his argument. He knows that figures can lie—and there is another part of that proverb. I am sure that he would gain the respect of the House to a far greater extent if he were much more statesmanlike and objective and presented a balanced case, instead of always being the devil's advocate and exaggerating the case in order to get the headlines.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was rather unfortunate tonight and rather less well-prepared than usual. He first tried to raise a matter which was not permissible on the Adjournment. He tried to make out a case for capital punishment, based on a hurried survey of statistics concerning the crime of murder. That having failed, he suggested that the increase in the numbers of murders was attributable—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: At any rate, the hon. Member linked it with the shortages in the police force. The interesting thing about murders is that the rate of detection and arrest is very high in Scotland. It is not in respect of murder that the rate of detection is low; it is in the sphere of housebreaking and crimes of violence apart from murder that the rate of detection has been very low. He was on a very weak point there.
He then said that whereas in 1963 Scotland was 300 constables under strength, in 1966 she was 1,000 short. What he did not tell us was the establishment in 1963 and the establishment in 1966. In 1966 it was very much higher than in 1963. That makes nonsense of his figures. If there is a shortage of 300 and the establishment is then raised considerably the shortage will increase. I

should have thought that that was self-evident. The important question is: what were the numbers in 1963 and what are the numbers now? I have not got the figures offhand, but I do not think that they will bear out the hon. Member's arguments.
He should treat the House much more seriously. I can understand his being anxious to score political points and to show what a fighting party the Tory party is. That demonstration is badly needed. But he should treat the House in a rather more adult fashion.
There is a need for more police. All right, but how are we to get them? The hon. Member did not deal with that question. He did not suggest what my hon. Friend should do to try to get the extra police. About two years ago we asked the police themselves to inquire into many matters—anything apart from salary—in the hope that it would enable us to pinpoint some of the causes of dissatisfaction among the police, so that steps could be taken to remedy them.
This has been done. I do not know what the result of the inquiries has been, but this process has been going on. The hon. Member has been sleeping if he does not know this. There are so many subjects about which he wishes to speak, and so many occasions on which he wishes to entertain the House with the brilliance of his dialectic, that he has no time to go into these matters in detail. He does not do himself justice.
It is very difficult to discover what the real difficulties are. It is only by finding out what is wrong from the police themselves that we can hope to deal with some of these difficulties and thereby to attract more policemen.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The right hon. Member has suggested that there is nothing much that can be done about the shortage of policemen. Is he aware that policemen are leaving Scotland to go to the Metropolitan Force in London at present? How can he justify a situation in which the wage differential causes policemen to go to London from Scotland, where we are desperately short of them?

Mr. Willis: Now the hon. Member raises a specific point. If the police are


leaving Scotland, we want to know the reasons. What are the wage differentials? Some of these policemen do not go to London; some go abroad, and some go to other parts of England. Why? It is not always because of the wage differential. The problem must be tackled by inquiring from the police themselves, and that is the way in which the Government have tried to tackle it.
At the same time, we must bear in mind the fact that this problem is not peculiar to the police; there is a shortage of teachers, of skilled engineers, and a shortage in almost every profession.

Mr. Woodburn: There is a shortage of people.

Mr. Willis: There is a shortage of people, and also a shortage of those with the necessary educational requirements and training requirements—and, in the case of the police, physical requirements. This problem affects almost every section of the community.
Furthermore, the problem does not arise altogether because of the shortage of police, or because of police organisation and methods. All these points are being examined every day and every week in an effort to improve the situation. Nobody would suggest that nothing can be done. I would not suggest that. I was a Minister at the time when we were trying to get the police to examine difficulties arising in the police force. We said to the police, "Tell us what the difficulties are. Let us have your opinion about some of the reasons for them." I know that there are difficulties which must be tackled. I merely point out that if he had made a contribution along these lines and offered a few suggestions the hon. Gentleman might have done the police some good. At the moment he is doing little good. He said that more police would mean less crime but this is more deplorably sloppy thinking by a very able young man and it is not worthy of him. The answer is not so simple, and trying to persuade people that crime will decrease with an increase in police of 50, 100 or 500 is a great disservice to the country.
The causes are difficult to ascertain. A number of reasons can be advanced. Why is one of the greatest increases in

housebreaking? Thirty years ago, the average working-class home, because of low incomes, contained nothing worth breaking in to steal and the people could leave their doors open. This is not so today. Almost every home has something worth stealing, from meters containing large sums to radios, television sets and radiograms.
In other words, opportunity and incentive are much greater and people still fail to take precautions. Many people still leave the key under the mat and the windows unlatched when they go out. Even with thousands of police, human nature and fallibility will not be changed. Therefore, this suggestion is wrong.
Increasing the number of police would, of course, make a contribution, but the whole answer is not so simple. Consider the number of offences connected with cars. Thirty years ago there was hardly a car in the streets, but now, walking from Waverley Street to Great King Street, I see thousands. This is all a temptation and thousands of crimes connected with cars are committed every year—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of not doing my home work, but is he aware that housebreaking, in which he said there was the biggest increase last year, in fact showed the smallest increase, according to the annual report, of just over 4 per cent., whereas crimes of violence increased by more than 11 per cent.?

Mr. Willis: I took housebreaking because there has been a considerable increase in that crime—

Mr. Taylor: The smallest.

Mr. Willis: Well, the hon. Member selects one year, but one should consider trends and there is a trend towards a large increase in housebreaking.
There is also, of course, a considerable increase in the number of crimes of violence. Why? What is the influence of television and the average type of present-day drama? What is the effect of living in a world in which acts of violence are accepted almost as part of life? What is the effect on young minds? Most of the increase is among teenagers and young people.
Society has changed enormously in twenty years and we have enormous freedoms which we did not possess before. To what extent have men and women and young people adjusted to them? We do not know. We must do far more research than at present—although a fair amount is being done—to discover an answer. Why do people take increasing quantities of drugs? That is not due to lack of police.
We must try to discover the effects of social changes on men and women, young people, teenagers and children. This should be the approach and not the facile, glib political approach of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he wants to see something done about this, as indeed we all do.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about murderers and was concerned with the whole subject of murder. I do not know to what extent he has visited murderers in prison and knows about them. He should make a tour of some of our prisons and meet murderers. If he does he will find that the bulk of them are not even given to violence. A man comes home and finds his wife with another man. Before he knows what has happened he has blacked out and later discovers that he has murdered his wife, the other man and perhaps the children as well. The biggest task for that murderer is to learn to live with himself. Once he realises the horror of what he has done he may find it virtually impossible to live with himself. A large proportion of murderers at present in prison are not given to crime in the normal sense.
The hon. Gentleman will find if he visits murderers that it is difficult to get through to them. The horror of their crime plays on their consciences and often it is not possible to hold a rational conversation with them. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, who I read in the Press has been visiting prisons, will support what I am saying. All the police in the world cannot stop this sort of crime from happening, and I do not pretend to be a psychiatrist or to know the answers to these questions. However, I know that it would be wrong, and would be doing a disservice to the public, to say that all these problems would be cured if we introduced flogging and other forms of punishment. Instead, we should be find-

ing out what causes people to take drugs, to indulge in violence, to go in for housebreaking and cause society the other anxieties from which it has been suffering in recent years.
Why, at what would normally be a peaceful demonstration, should 30 policemen get wounded and people have broken legs? What emotions are suddenly aroused to result in these happenings? I do not know the answers. We must find the answers and attract people's attention to the need to carry out studies—and spend the money to do so—to solve this problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain what is being done, what research is being undertaken and what steps are being taken regarding the police, to study the problem of crime.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I have had too long an association with the police force, in an administrative capacity, to approach a short debate like this in other than a constructive way. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made an interesting speech and I appreciate the great personal effort which he put into helping the police force while he was responsible for that service when at the Scottish Office.
I do not wish to indulge in a defence of capital punishment. I believe that it should exist, but I will not say why tonight, because this is not the appropriate moment to discuss that subject. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reasons for there being more crime, and said that we do not know the reason for the increase in housebreaking, crimes of violence, theft and the rest. I wish that we could do a little less talking about finding out causes and take a little more action in dealing with crime. It is the national malaise at the moment to set up committees of inquiry when so often the results can be forecast even before the first sitting of a committee. I wish we could have rather more action and rather fewer words.
Accepting, tonight, that there is more crime in the broad sense, it is also true to say that if the criminals were fairly certain in their own minds that the detection rate was increasing so rapidly that crime was not worth while we might see a reduction. We all accept, too, that the police service in Scotland is doing a very


great deal to raise its standards—which, in any case, are exceptionally high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred to the police college at Tullieallan. I have visited the college and I know that it is exceptionally good and is very well run. It bodes well for the future. It will be a day of great satisfaction in Scotland when we get the appointment of chief constables who did their basic training at our own police college. That will come sooner rather than later.
It may be obvious to say so, but in order to raise the detection rate we must have more policemen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has argued. I know that the establishment has gone up and that we have a larger number of policemen coming into the service, but the regrettable fact is that we are also losing policemen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East, in his journeys to the police forces of Scotland, must have felt the impact of the policeman's view about pay. He rightly argued that teachers, doctors, dentists and other professional people are crying out for increased salaries—

Mr. Willis: I did not say anything about pay, but I pointed out that there were shortages in all the other professions, and that those shortages had other causes.

Mr. Monro: Yes, but I believe that shortages in those professions stem from insufficient pay in comparison with what a person might earn in industry. Whether we should give the teachers, the police and the doctors a little more is a question of a balance of priorities, and this is where the politician must make a decision. I believe that crime has such a major impact on Britain at the present time that we should be prepared to give a greater priority to the police service.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, while there may be a shortage of police, we have to some extent taken the scientific way of dealing with the problem by providing the police with much more scientific equipment and machinery—walkie-talkie sets, and all sorts of things like that—which greatly increase the effectiveness of each man

in the force; and that science is to a great extent making up for the deficiency in numbers.

Mr. Monro: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and had intended a little later to mention the new scientific equipment that has been introduced over the last ten years with very specific results. However, I do not want to say anything more about that.
Police pay should be increased and the increase should be coupled with increases in pension. Too many officers are retiring too young because, I believe, they want to increase their earning capacity while they are young enough to do so and, at the same time, get an early pension, whereas if their final pension is to be at a higher level they will stay on to the end of their allotted service in the force.
More from the point of view of the honour of the police force, when we are considering police pensions we should go back to all those who may have retired for 10, 15 or 20 years. Those elder statesmen of the police force have a tremendous power of recruitment of young men in their districts. If they felt that they had been well treated and had a good pension, they would be inclined to channel young people to the service. I hope that if there are negotiations retired police officers will be given careful consideration.
How right both right hon. Gentlemen were when talking about the improved conditions and facilities in the force in recent years. Particularly in rural areas the day of the police bicycle has gone. Every policeman should have a van and a radio set and be in touch with headquarters all the time he is away from the office. This is something which is developing very rapidly. Also when considering rural police we should pay tribute to their wives. No policeman will be happy in his work if his wife is unhappy. For long hours she is left at home alone, often having to answer the telephone and do all sorts of chores on behalf of the police service. It is up to us to see that the lot of the policeman's wife is made as good as it possibly can be.
In rural areas we should beware of too much centralisation. In Scotland a rural area can cover a wide variety of


country districts and the fringes of towns, but we should beware of dragging everyone to the centre and having too few men seen on the beat during the day or night. It is important not to over-centralise the force in Scotland. A corollary to what I said about the policeman's wife concerns the standard of housing for policemen. It cannot be too high. It must be up to the highest standard of council houses in the area. We must also provide good accommodation for unmarried police officers who have no home within the area of the force.
So much could be said about the police, but in a debate which has come on at relatively short notice it is impossible to touch on every point one would like to make. I think we must accept that there is an increase in crime; statistics prove that. In my view, after many years of work with the police, we must look primarily to an increase in salary if we are to make a dramatic improvement in strength. The establishment is going up steadily. That is natural and I am glad that it is so. So also is the strength, but we want to get the establishment and the strength almost equal. The prime necessity is to tackle pay and pensions, coupled with rising standards of equipment available for officers in the force.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Motion. He has exhausted his right.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Because I made a contribution of one and a half minutes in a previous debate, which contribution was really in the form of a question, am I ruled out of order for this Adjournment debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman made a speech, of whatever length, he has exhausted his right to speak on the Motion and cannot make a second speech. The question of time does not enter into it. The point is whether he was called formally to speak.

8.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I have to thank my right hon. Friends who have spoken and also the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for the construc-

tive way in which they have taken part in the debate. Although I would like to have done so, I much regret the fact that I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who initiated the debate. We all recognise the serious position we face. I am conscious of the moving speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who made the simple point to the hon. Member for Cathcart—"Have you ever met these people whom you are discussing? Do you really know the situation of these people?"
I got very little indication in his opening speech that the hon. Member for Cathcart had any understanding of it. I am sorry that in this kind of problem, which raises so many passions and so many fears, the hon. Gentleman should have tended to play upon those passions and fears. I do not think that his speech either helped towards securing the tranquillity of his native city, where I also live, or contributed to the stoppage of crime or to his peripheral interest, which is recruitment to the police force. The contribution of the hon. Member for Dumfries was in shining contrast, especially in the way that he dealt with the latter point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it.
Not only was the opening part of the speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart greatly out of order, but his opening statistic was inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman could have profitably used the half an hour which I was given to prepare myself for this debate by at least ensuring that his opening statistic was accurate. The statistics which he tried to call in aid are against him. I do not know to what extent I should be out of order, in view of the Chair's earlier Rulings, if I attempted to discuss the question of statistics in relation to murder. A comparison between our experience and that of other countries, countries which have abolished the death penalty and countries which have not, shows that there is practically no difference between the statistics. This is true even when comparisons are made within one country, where one state has the death penalty and another has not. Statistics are not with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman could have based his case on other grounds. He could have


said that society demands this punishment and that for its own sake we want it back. However, he based his case on statistics. Not only was his initial figure wrong, but I ask him to consider this aspect before he again ventures upon this subject. First, there has been no sudden increase over the last few years since the death penalty was abolished, despite his famous ratio of 14 to 31. Secondly, trying to reach conclusions on a matter of life and death based on figures of 14 and 31 out of a population of 5 million is statistical nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman should know. His figures are far too small to base any kind of deductions on, let alone deductions involving life and death.
There are other factors. Since the introduction of our present legislation on murder, often defence counsel and, for that matter, prosecutions are inclined to allow a case to proceed as murder, whereas previously they would have fought to have it put forward in another capacity—for example, as culpable homicide. I know that the hon. Gentleman tried to cover this point, but he did not do it very effectively, because none of us knows to what extent many of the cases at present characterised as murder would have been tried as murder cases or classified in another way.
There is another matter to which the hon. Gentleman should give a little attention. We all recognise that there has been an increase in physical violence, in assaults, in brawls among young people. He did not pay much attention to this, but other hon. Members stressed this very important matter. If the hon. Member knows his own area, he should know that it is very simple for an ordinary brawl outside a pub to end in one of two ways.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: There are no pubs in my area.

Mr. Buchan: No, there are no pubs in the hon. Gentleman's own area, and when earlier the hon. Gentleman called for the return of flogging, I wondered whom he wanted to be flogged. Did he mean the middle-class children, or will they get treatment by a psychiatrist? Is it working-class children for whom flogging will be seen as a deterrent? This

is a matter which hon. Members should keep in mind. I have not seen some of the birchers advocating that their own children should be flogged. There is a certain class interest in this matter.
However, there are pubs in Glasgow and the hon. Gentleman should know very well how easily an assault can end in murder as much as in a simple buffeting on the pavement with the two concerned walking together down the street to the next pub. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, then I am sorry and it is time he did know.
In his speech there was the dangerous suggestion that the deterrent to murder should be extended because of the increase in crimes of violence. Is he really suggesting that we should bring back a death penalty also for crimes of violence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be only proper to point out that the hon. Gentleman is now in the province which I ruled to be out of order when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was speaking.

Mr. Buchan: I wonder whether it would be in order to say that if that was not the hon. Gentleman's argument, as so many murders arise out of cases of assault, if the death penalty were not applied to cases of assault, it would not stop the murders. That is a piece of logic which the hon. Gentleman can moon over tonight.
The important matter is the rise in crime in general and the question of police recruitment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say which was the figure which I gave which he described as inaccurate? Every one was taken from his own Department's publication, "Criminal Statistics".

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been 45 cases of murder; the number was 44.

Mr. Taylor: Table 5 on page 28 under the word "total" says 45.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should have gone on to a more analytical table, table 4 on page 27 which he can also moon over tonight.
We take this matter seriously precisely because we see an increase in crimes of violence, so many of them ending in murder, as well as recognising the problem that the basic murderer is quite different from the man whose assault is stretched into murder. The hon. Gentleman laughed when someone said that the second was not a criminal, but those who have met and know this problem know what was meant. Such men have committed a crime, but basically, as human beings, they are not a criminal type. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he does not know what he is talking about and he does a disservice to the community by raising the subject.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned police numbers. It has been suggested that I should have been giving much more urgency to this matter than I have been giving it in public statements, and perhaps the purpose of the debate is to attack my public statements. I do not know, because I have not heard it established at what public statements I failed to give this matter urgency. As hon. Members know, I have been to a very great number of meetings throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, meetings with magistrates, police and in the institutions where these people are confined. This he should know. I have been paying a great deal of attention to this matter, following the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. For the first time the Secretary of State for Scotland is now chairing the Police Advisory Board. This was not done when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office.
Now for the actual figures. Of course there is a shortage of police and of course we are making every attempt to recruit them. It is no answer to suggest that the shortage occurred from 15th October, 1964 onwards. The numbers have increased since. In 1962 there were 9,607, in 1964, 9,993. It is not until after 1964 that we get over the 10,000 mark. In 1966 there were 10,244. The hon. Member for Cathcart was complaining of the establishment. The figures in Scotland have risen. This is the key matter.
We have a bigger establishment, and we should be congratulated for that. Even granted that we have increased the estalishment, in 1964 we were about 725 below establishment. In 1966, with our increased establishment, we were 887 below. Thus we have a figure about 100 below, with a greatly increased establishment. It shows urgency, not the opposite. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was wrong again.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member demanded that we get statistics month by month. He asks why we cannot have statistics for September. He complained that he would not get an answer about certain statistics up to September, 1967. The answer is that very often some things turn out not to be what they at first seem. This is true of alleged murder and a number of other cases. It is not until the judicial process has been gone through that figures can be produced, and this may take months.
Even in September we are fairly up to date. If he wants an up-to-date figure I can get the figure for police numbers in September, 1967. For the first time now we are reversing the trend and the numbers are on the increase once again.

Mr. Dalyell: What is being done to facilitate recruitment from the Services during the run-down of the Services, and secondly, can he explain why it is, in this day and age, that people of a height like himself are not being accepted for the police force? To some of us it seems very strange that when the well-known Chief Constable of the Lothian and Peebles Constabulary is a diminutive figure, at any rate in physical appearance, there should not be widespread recruitment of men of smaller height who might make excellent policemen?

Mr. Buchan: Those are both valuable points. The first one requires a great deal of attention, and I hope it will prove a fruitful source of recruitment. On the question of height, someone once said that the reason why I was the gaffer of the police force was because I was 2½ inches too short to be inside it. We have reduced the height and certain other physical demands made in the past.
I have been told that certain people dislike being arrested by small men. They want to be arrested by big men so that their dignity is not offended. We have reduced the height, which should increase the recruitment figure.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how he could say, a few minutes ago, that there has been an improvement in the strength of the police in the up-to-date figure for September, that the trend has been reversed, when at five o'clock today I received an Answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that the number was 10,232, the first reduction that we have had for five years? Can he explain how he feels that there has been an improvement when the Secretary of State told me that the figures were down?

Mr. Buchan: The point which I was making was that the basic trend has been reversed. In the first nine months of 1967, there has been a net gain in strength of 39. This is one of the difficulties which one runs into when hon. Members try to take a snap political point in a debate initiated at very short notice. I will see whether the figure of 39 correlates with the 30th September figure.
I come to the question of the detection rate. I accept that this is the real deterrent. This is the real answer to the question of conscious crime. The hon. Gentleman did not realise that we are also dealing with a social problem. He thought that more and more police would solve the problem. It would not. But that would help to prevent the organised crime. The detection rate has gone up slightly.
Among the measures which we have been taking, apart from taking seriously the question of the Advisory Board on which the Secretary of State sits to give it maximum governmental and public support, is the formation announced a few months ago of a national crime squad. There is the question of the unit beat experiment. The hon. Member for Dumfries referred to police being central and not local. I have seen the unit beat experiment in practice, with the use of small vans. We have great hopes of this, because it gets to the social point. It begins to knit the police into the community. This is the basic point with which we have to deal—the relationship

between the police force and the community.
One of the most fruitful aspects of the recent discussions which I had with the magistrates from Glasgow was that we decided to meet again to look at the question of social delinquency and to see what can be done about linking the police as part of the community. We have tried to help with publicity methods. We recently carried out a campaign in Dundee. We have introduced more scientific equipment. We are encouraging and allowing local forces to increase the number of cars they are using in Scotland. A month ago we gave permission for additional expenditure to be made in that way, which I know will please the hon. Gentleman.
We are expanding the cadet force and introducing civilianisation. One of the problems is that the police are seen as traffic controllers and are concerned with motor accidents, and they often find it difficult to have the right relationship with the public when a more specific crime has been committed. We hope that the introduction of traffic wardens will release the pressure on the police to some extent.
In all these ways we are taking steps to deal with the real problem. I see no reason for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are not tackling this matter urgently. I do not want to go into the question of the wastage of police tonight. It is a very complex problem as to why people leave a particular force or emigrate. Most people agree that it is not usually a simple question of there being no job and people therefore emigrating. Police are among the emigrant figures. The crude equation of wages does not explain why a man goes into another police force in England where there is no wage differentiation. No research has suggested that wages constitute the only factor in emigration.
One of the essential factors is the satisfaction which we can give the police in their job and the knitting-in with the local community. This is the kind of final answer which we are looking for which is not helped by the scare accounts of crime which we had earlier.
I hope that in the very short time that I have had to deal with what is far too


serious a topic to be raised at short notice—

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Buchan: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that he is spoiling my peroration.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a point of substance for my constituents and the A.A. Some of us feel that the police could be more fruitfully used in looking at the very considerable problem of speeding and careless and selfish driving on a road which has become quite notorious for its death rate. Would my hon. Friend say something on that matter?

Mr. Buchan: I do not want to pursue that particular point. It remains valid to say that if traffic wardens are used for general traffic purposes, one is ipso facto releasing police to deal with major problems, which might be major

traffic or road problems, such as the point which my hon. Friend has suggested on the road in question, or it may be professional crime. At least, the police are released for dealing with those matters which are socially harmful if wardens do the basic technical traffic control.
I hope that I have emphasised both how urgently we take this problem, in terms of murder and serious assault and crime in general, and how seriously we have taken not only recruitment to the police force but the increasing efficiency of the police. I am confident that tonight, both from my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken and from the hon. Member for Dumfries the kind of contribution has been made that will help in that direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Nine o'clock.